Author manuscript, published in "ITS'2008: 9th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Workshop on Culturally Aware Tutoring Systems (CATS'2008), Montreal, Canada: (2008)" How the PILÉFACE System, Dealing with Pragmatics, Takes Cultural
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In the domain of language acquisition, PILÉFACE is a system that has been initially designed to take into account the pragmatic aspects of language, i.e. to provide the learner not only with a linguistic competence, but also with a communicative competence. That communicative competence implies that the language learner master certain pragmatic usage rules, which are mastered by the native speaker, but unspoken and unwritten, and therefore implicit. In that context, PILÉFACE is readily equipped to take into account many socio-cultural aspects of communication exchanges. In this paper, starting with culture-aware pedagogical dialogues, we show which types of cultural aspects may occur in such dialogues, how these cultural aspects are actually implemented in the data organization and system architecture of PILÉFACE, and how they could be extended using the same architecture.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.522 | 0.228 |
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".