MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discourse markers cross-linguistically

2023· article· en· W4386461505 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLinguistics and Language Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsLinguisticsTypologyFocus (optics)Discourse markerVariety (cybernetics)Meaning (existential)SurpriseConversationStatement (logic)DenialCharacter (mathematics)PsychologySociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article deals with discourse markers — idiomatic utterances made in response to the interlocutor’s statement in the course of a conversation. The paper introduces and inter-prets discourse formulae formed with propositional verbs with the meaning of agreement and confirmation, disagreement and denial, surprise, indignation. The interest to discourse mark-ers is due to their obviously notable contribution to spoken communication. Also, this kind of items are in most cases language-specific. A variety of discourse markers in several languages is under review, with the focus on their language-specific features. The innovative and rele-vant character of the paper arises from its bearing on the area of semantic typology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it