Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36569631›Full record

ArticleJournal of pragmatics2022

Jessie Burnette, Andreea S Calude

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pragmatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jessie BurnetteUniversity of Waikato, New Zealand.
Andreea S CaludeUniversity of Waikato, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As Covid-19 made its way to the shores of Aotearoa New Zealand in 2020, Kiwis took to Twitter to share their experiences and opinions regarding both the virus and government responses. In this paper, we examine a corpus of 1001 tweets to see just how Twitter users utilize different linguistic and politeness strategies when sharing directives conveying stance toward government Covid-19 measures. While there has been research into the use of directives in spoken and written language, there has been little exploration of how directives are used in the language of Social Media. Often considered difficult to classify even in more traditional language genres, Twitter corpora pose additional challenges. We propose a strategy to identify and classify directives using syntactic and pragmatic features, and use this strategy to identify linguistic patterns of both in relation to stance toward government Covid-19 measures. While we find that the most prototypical directive within our corpus is largely consistent with previous definitions, we also find that tweeters exhibit a striking amount of variation in directive strategy, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to directive identification and classification. We further note trends in the directive strategies utilized by tweeters expressing different stances toward government measures.

Indexed as

CorpusDirectivesPolitenessSocial mediaStanceTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36569631
PMCPMC9758008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.