Do They Mind Their Ps and Qs: Politeness Strategies in the Movie, Joy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was an interpersonal communication study on the politeness methods used by the main characters in the film Joy in the setting mostly of a family cum workplace communication. The purpose of this study was to describe the major characters' politeness tactics. The data for this descriptive qualitative study, the dialogues uttered by all of the movie's principal characters, were scrutinized using Brown and Levinson's (1987) paradigm. The investigation studied how the characters used politeness strategies such as positive politeness, Bald-on -Record, negative politeness and off-record techniques in their utterances. The data came from the script of Joy, and it was identified that 833 politeness strategies were employed. Bald on Record (8%), Positive Politeness (51%), Negative Politeness (35%), and Off Record (6%). The findings revealed that positive politeness strategies were the most frequently used in this film. The results indicated that the main characters had a tendency to use positive politeness to show their respect and also to maintain a harmonious relationship in the family and workplace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".