MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W569615099 · doi:10.1353/book26548

Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media

2013· book· en· W569615099 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGeorgetown University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsComputer scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Deborah Tannen and Anna Marie Trester, Georgetown University 1. Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, Reconfigured, and Emergent Susan C. Herring, Indiana University-Bloomington 2. Polities and Politics of Ongoing Assessments: Evidence from Video-Gaming and Blogging Herve Varenne, Gillian Gus Andrews, Aaron Chia-Yuan Hung, and Sarah Wessler, Teachers College, Columbia University 3. Participatory Culture and Metalinguistic Discourse: Performing and Negotiating German Dialects on YouTube Jannis Androutsopoulos, University of Hamburg 4. My English Is So Poor...So I Take Photos: Metalinguistic Discourses about English on Flickr Carmen Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong 5. Their Lives Are So Much Better Than Ours!: The Ritual (Re)construction of Social Identity in Holiday Cards Jenna Mahay, Concordia University Chicago 6. The Medium Is the Metamessage: Conversational Style in New Media Interaction Deborah Tannen, Georgetown University 7. Bringing Mobiles into the Conversation: Applying a Conversation Analytic Approach to the Study of Mobiles in Co-present Interaction Stephen M. DiDomenico, Rutgers University and Jeffrey Boase, Ryerson University 8. Facework on Facebook: Conversations on Social Media Laura West and Anna Marie Trester, Georgetown University 9. Mock Performatives in Online Discussion Boards: Towards a Discourse-Pragmatic Model of Computer-Mediated CommunicationTuija Virtanen, Abo Akademi University 10. Re- and Pre-authoring Experiences in Email Supervision: Creating and Revising Professional Meanings in an Asynchronous Medium Cynthia Gordon and Melissa Luke, Syracuse University 11. Blogs: A Medium for Intellectual Engagement with Course Readings and ParticipantsMarianna Ryshina-Pankova and Jens Kugele, Georgetown University 12. Reading in Print or Onscreen: Better, Worse, or About the Same? Naomi S. Baron, American University 13. Fakebook: Synthetic Media, Pseudo-sociality, and the Rhetorics of Web 2.0 Crispin Thurlow, University of Washington Index

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.009

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations87
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeorgetown University Press eBooksSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207