Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores perception of discourse irony in Czech - how can irony affect Czech adults and teenagers, their definition of it and what are the differences between irony in Czech and in English. The inspiration for my paper was a cross-cultural study of comprehension of sarcasm in Czech and Canadian children in which I was concerned and which revealed that Czech children understand sarcasm somehow sooner than Canadian children. My paper focuses on two experiments I did with Czech adults for purposes of the cross-cultural study, in which adults were just the control group, and on following experiment with Czech teenagers, who weren't included in the study at all. The first experiment (the preliminary stage of the cross-cultural study) showed the approach of Czech adults to the forms of irony used in the cross-cultural study and what the term irony means to them. The second experiment confirmed appreciable differences in perception of social-communicative aspects of irony (pleasantness, unpleasantness, wittiness) between Czech and Canadian adults - the Czechs feel irony much more negative than the Canadians do. The third experiment was with fifteen-year-old Czech students and it pointed out that although their language skills are in principle comparable with those of adults, in the case of irony...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".