Verbal irony comprehension in middle school age children and adults in Polish and English discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine Polish and Canadian children’s and adults’ attention to two potential cues to ironic intent: 1) interpretive perspective (addressee versus bystander), and 2) parties present (speaker, addressee, and bystander). Polish participants were 36 9- to 10-year-olds and 36 adults recruited from schools in Poland. Canadian participants were matched from an existing dataset. Participants watched 9 videos containing ironic criticisms, literal criticisms, and literal compliments. Video characters criticized/complimented a present or absent addressee either with or without a bystander in three conditions: private evaluation, public evaluation, and gossip. Participants judged speaker’s intent and humour from the addressee’s perspective, and/or the bystander’s perspective. Interpretative perspective served as a cue to verbal irony only among Canadian adults, who rated ironic criticisms more mean and more serious when interpreting these statements from the addressee’s perspective versus the bystander’s perspective. The number of parties present influenced interpretation of irony’s seriousness for Polish adults, but not their Canadian counterparts. Polish adults rated public ironic criticisms as less serious compared to private ironic criticisms, while Canadian adults rated the conditions similarly. The results show that the relevance of cues in interpreting ironic criticisms is influenced by age and culture.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".