Rethinking Communicative Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume breaks open traditional disciplinary confines and approaches the full complexity of communicative interaction from an impressive range of exciting state-of-the-art perspectives in social psychology, conversation analysis, hermeneutics, constructivist psychology, communication theory, computational neuroscience, sociology of communication, second language pragmatics, ergonomic interaction theory and computer-mediated interaction studies. In so doing, it sets out to establish a new research agenda in which communication science is understood as a human-social science par excellence. This collection of fifteen essays by seventeen scholars from Canada, the United States, Brazil, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK will be of interest to scholars and students in all of the above fields. The editor, Colin B. Grant, is Reader in Modern Languages in the School of Management and Languages, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, where he runs the interdisciplinary social communication science research group. He is author of Literary Communication from Consensus to Rupture (1995), Functions and Fictions of Communication (2000) and chief editor of Language-Meaning-Social Construction (2001).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".