Cognitive Mechanisms of Communicative Behaviour of Representatives of Various Linguistic Cultures of the East
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicative behaviour is primarily based on the understanding of the ways a person interacts with other members of society and how much this reflects the cultural component of the communication process. This also includes the structure of discourse, which affects the communicative content of communication. The relevance of studying the specifics of organising discourse by representatives of oriental linguistic cultures is conditioned by the need to understand the deep cognitive mechanisms of their communicative behaviour in the context of the ever-increasing globalisation of the modern world. The novelty of the study is that it analyses some key factors that have a direct impact on the formation of communicative behaviour of carriers of the eastern mentality. The paper presents some deep aspects of the formation of a communicative culture in the traditions of the East, the study of which is of particular interest in the context of the growing need for successful intercultural communication. Communicative behaviour is analysed in the context of the correlation of language and culture, language and national mentality, language and consciousness. The practical significance of the study is determined by the need to form a global communicative space and structure the worldview aspect of intercultural interaction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".