MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416096639 · doi:10.1075/sic.24016.cab

An exploration into modality, interpersonal meanings and intonation in peer interaction

2025· article· en· W4416096639 on OpenAlexaff
Mercedes Cabrera Abreu, Eva Estebas Vilaplana

Bibliographic record

VenueSpanish in Context · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntonation (linguistics)CategorizationTone (literature)Deontic logicInterpersonal communicationModalIdentification (biology)Natural (archaeology)Register (sociolinguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A fall-to-mid intonation in Spanish has traditionally been associated with meanings like uncertainty, incompleteness, command and politeness. In syntactic constructions, it is attested in a subject followed by a non-restrictive relative clause and enumerations, etc. These descriptions report its high frequency use in tightly controlled speech. Yet, further research is necessary to understand better the linguistic reasons behind its presence in spontaneous speech. In this study, a sub-corpus of highly natural dialogues in European Standard Peninsular Spanish is selected from the corpus Glissando ( Garrido et al., 2011 ) and all the instances of the tone are identified acoustically. Following the corpus linguistics methodology, we tagged instances of modal meanings manifested in the use of the specified tone, to later compute the frequency and distribution of words bearing it, as well as retrieved concordances. This allowed the identification and categorization of modal meanings expressed by the presence of the tone. The results suggest that the fall-to-mid tone can be mapped into a wide range of word categories to express deontic and epistemic modality, together with various evaluative and interpersonal meanings.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.364 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpanish in ContextSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207