Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 312

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Two variants of an electronic message schema

Herring, Susan C.·1996·Pragmatics & Beyond New Series

Abstract

L'A. analyse l'organisation schematique des messages electroniques envoyes a deux listes de correspondance (l'une plus particulierement masculine, l'autre plus particulierement feminine), de maniere a evaluer le stereotype populaire selon lequel les hommes et les femmes utilisent ce type d'echanges a des fins differentes (echange d'information vs. interaction sociale). Les resultats ne vont pas dans ce sens: les individus des deux sexes envoient des messages electroniques pour echanger des points de vue et de l'information de maniere interactive. Toutefois, les messages des hommes et des femmes sont structures differemment: utilisation d'alignements pour les femmes et d'oppositions pour les hommes

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1075/pbns.39.08her

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Herring, S. C.
Venue
Pragmatics & Beyond New Series
Published
1996-06-26
Pages
81
ISSN
0922-842X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W103043902
Cited by
312
References
0
FWCI
7.50
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.