Practices of Dialogue, Dialogues in Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This introduction to the Language and Dialogue special issue explores the multifaceted concepts of "dialogues in practice" and "practices of dialogue" across various academic disciplines, emphasizing their significance in linguistics, communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, and ethics. It discusses the diverse meanings of dialogue, ranging from information exchange to collective interaction. The normative aspect of dialogue is highlighted, stressing the importance of respectful interaction, acceptance of the other, and freedom of choice. Drawing on philosophical ideas, the text emphasizes learning and mutual understanding despite disagreements. It recognizes the creativity of dialogue in shaping values, identities, relationships, and knowledge. However, dialogue's fragility and potential threats are acknowledged. The text calls for a deeper understanding of dialogue's practical accomplishment, considering its productive and creative dimensions within various practices. The special issue's article aim to explore practices of dialogue to achieve desirable societal objectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".