{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics:P2:v0","cell_id":"negative_space_design__linguistics_semiotics","search_queries":["linguistic fieldwork elicitation avoid leading questions consultant prompt methodology","language documentation fieldwork elicitation ethics consultant silence leading questions","interviewer wait time silence response quality research study","site:degruyter.com linguistic fieldwork elicitation leading questions prompts consultant","site:linguisticsociety.org ethics statement linguistic fieldwork consultants consent official","site:archive.mpi.nl language documentation elicitation fieldwork best practices consultant","site:elararchive.org language documentation fieldwork ethics elicitation consultant guidance","linguistic fieldwork elicitation influence metalanguage priming consultant response research","Linguistic Society of America ethics statement research participants informed consent language consultants","site:linguisticsociety.org resource ethics statement linguistics","UNESCO language documentation ethics community researchers language official","NSF Dynamic Language Infrastructure DEL solicitation community collaboration language documentation","\"fieldworker does not tolerate silence\" linguistics","\"Linguistic stimulus primes response\" fieldwork language description","\"Pressure\" \"fieldworker\" \"tolerate silence\" linguistics elicitation","site:cambridge.org linguistic fieldwork silence elicitation pressure","\"Fieldwork for language description\" author","\"Fieldwork for language description\" Cambridge DOI","\"A speaker’s reactions may be unreliable\" linguistics","clean language interviewing minimize interviewer content research method primary paper","\"Clean Language Interviewing\" methodology study","\"Clean Language\" qualitative interviewing leading questions research paper","site:journalofcleanlanguage.com clean interviewing research","\"The Role of Wait Time During the Questioning of Children\" DOI","\"Pause for effect\" \"10-s interviewer wait time\" DOI","site:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov \"wait time\" questioning children systematic review","Stivers Enfield 2009 universals cultural variation turn-taking PNAS response timing ten languages","site:pnas.org 0903616106 turn taking cultural variation response times","10.1017/CBO9781139013734.005 Cambridge Fieldwork for language description","site:nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dli-del \"NSF 22-615\""],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Fieldwork for language description","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/research-methods-in-linguistics/C786E6A515E3CBF697D7309441A19EE8/fieldwork-for-language-description/58B69D1AC5514D08C105755E9E78E323","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2014-01-23","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Rigorous methodology is required for accurate language description.","The chapter identifies linguistic-stimulus priming, researcher pressure caused by intolerance of silence, and researcher-focused prompting as threats to elicited data.","It recommends participant control, flexible elicitation, multiple speakers, and triangulation with natural discourse."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Multilingual elicitation in a multilingual fieldwork setting","publisher":"University of British Columbia, Semantic Fieldwork Methods","url":"https://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/storyboards/article/view/195326","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2022-05-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Language used to present elicitation materials can influence judgments.","Prompt-language choice is an integral methodological, social, and practical decision rather than a neutral carrier.","Fieldworkers must remain alert to influence from both contact and object languages."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Enhancing Researcher Reflexivity About the Influence of Leading Questions in Interviews","publisher":"SAGE Publications, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00218863211037446","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2021-08-18","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Question wording can lead or unduly influence interviewee responses and weaken knowledge claims.","The cleanness-rating method makes interviewer influence auditable by classifying interviewer questions and statements.","Minimizing introduced content and documenting departures are established adjacent practices."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"The Role of Wait Time During the Questioning of Children: A Systematic Review","publisher":"SAGE Publications, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse","url":"https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15248380241246793","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2024-04-25","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Adults' natural wait times are short, while trained extended wait time can benefit child and adult talk.","Wait-time protocols are established in education and adjacent interviewing settings.","The review found only one forensic-interview study of a 10-second rule and calls for context-specific research, limiting transferability to adult linguistic fieldwork."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Pause for effect: A 10-s interviewer wait time gives children time to respond to open-ended prompts","publisher":"Elsevier, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; indexed by U.S. National Library of Medicine","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32127193/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2020-02-29","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Seven interviewers applied a 10-second wait guideline across 105 conversations.","More than 96% of pauses followed by event information occurred within the 10-second window.","A bounded wait rule can be trained and observed, although the study population and purpose differ materially from adult language elicitation."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation","publisher":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences; archived by U.S. National Library of Medicine","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2705608/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2009-06-24","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Conversation across ten languages generally minimizes gaps and overlap, making deliberately extended silence interactionally marked.","Response timing varies quantitatively across languages and cultures.","Answers, nonanswers, requests for information, gaze, and visible responses have different timing patterns, supporting typed rather than uniform interpretation of silence."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"LSA Revised Ethics Statement","publisher":"Linguistic Society of America","url":"https://www.lsadc.org/Files/Advocacy/201907_LSA%20Revised%20Ethics%20Statement.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2019-07","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Participation must remain voluntary at every stage and participants must control recording and data access.","Linguists should consult participants about the conduct and direction of research and seek early community involvement.","Community norms, culturally appropriate protocols, dignity, welfare, compensation, and non-coercion constrain implementation authority."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"NSF 22-615: NSF Dynamic Language Infrastructure–NEH Documenting Endangered Languages","publisher":"U.S. National Science Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities","url":"https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/dli-del-nsf-dynamic-language-infrastructure-neh-documenting/nsf22-615/solicitation","source_class":"GOVERNMENT_OR_REGULATOR","publication_date":"2022-07-19","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["NSF and NEH identify endangered-language recording, documentation, analysis, and community collaboration as fundable needs.","Eligible adopters include universities, nonprofit research organizations, and Tribal organizations.","The latest posted solicitation allowed grants up to $450,000 over three years, but the program is currently awaiting a new solicitation and is not accepting proposals, so it is not a presently available funding route."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"The target-domain literature explicitly identifies the two proposed failure mechanisms: linguistic stimuli can prime speakers to copy prompt syntax, and a fieldworker who does not tolerate silence can pressure a speaker into unreliable reactions. Multilingual semantic-fieldwork research independently confirms that prompt-language choices can influence judgments, while broader interview research documents leading-question effects. The problem visibly exists and threatens provenance and interpretability, but its prevalence in any specified project's recordings remains unmeasured.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"NSF/NEH are identifiable funders of language-documentation fieldwork and explicitly value rigorous documentation and well-defined community partnerships; project PIs, community partners, and ethics bodies are identifiable authorizers. However, no source expresses demand for this particular protected-window protocol, and the latest DLI-DEL solicitation is currently closed pending replacement. Specific adopter pull therefore remains unverified.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"SUBSTANTIAL_COLLISION","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Fieldwork guidance on priming, silence pressure, participant control, and flexible elicitation","similarity":"Identifies the same target-domain problem and already advises fieldworkers not to press through silence, to give speakers control, and to scrutinize elicitation effects.","remaining_difference":"It does not specify one prompt, a timed protected interval, typed no-response states, staged reintroduction, or prompt-history outcome coding.","source_ids":["S1"]},{"name":"Trained 10-second interviewer wait-time guideline","similarity":"Operationalizes a bounded period after an open-ended prompt during which interviewers refrain from adding another prompt; compliance and response timing are measurable.","remaining_difference":"It concerns interviews with children about remembered events, not adult linguistic consultants or provenance of elicited lexical and grammatical forms, and does not use the proposal's staged alternate-prompt log.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},{"name":"Clean Language Interviewing and cleanness rating","similarity":"Minimizes interviewer-introduced content and makes leading language auditable at the utterance level.","remaining_difference":"It governs question content throughout an interview rather than protecting a bounded silence after one prompt, and it lacks typed exits and timed reintroduction.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Multilingual semantic-elicitation prompt control","similarity":"Treats the language and content of elicitation stimuli as methodological variables that may influence consultant judgments.","remaining_difference":"It manages stimulus-language selection rather than premature follow-up timing or consultant-controlled response windows.","source_ids":["S2"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Among consenting adult language consultants completing low-sensitivity elicitation items, a pre-cued single prompt followed by a project-calibrated protected interval, consultant-controlled answer/pass/clarification exits, and logged neutral-to-alternate staged reintroduction will increase the proportion of analyzable first responses produced before researcher-supplied lexical or grammatical material, relative both to ordinary flexible interviewing and to a take-your-time instruction alone, without increasing misunderstood cues, reported pressure, unresolved repair, or loss of necessary clarification.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"Implementation is technically simple: existing audio/video recording, timestamped transcription, a scripted cue, a timer or trained internal count, and a prompt-history coding form suffice. Wait-time research shows bounded rules can be trained and observed. However, ordinary conversational silence is interactionally marked, timing varies across communities, delayed responses can signal nonanswer or trouble, and visible responses may precede speech. Community-specific calibration, accessible nonverbal exits, consent amendments, recording permissions, independent coding, and immediate safety/repair overrides are therefore necessary. No legal prohibition was found, but actual community, project, and institutional approval has not been demonstrated.","source_ids":["S4","S5","S6","S7"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":3,"rationale":"Improved provenance and consultant agency could materially improve the interpretability of affected elicitation records, especially where language data are irreplaceable, but target-workflow prevalence and realized effect are unknown.","source_ids":["S1","S8"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":2,"rationale":"A relevant funder and authorization structure are identifiable, but there is no protocol-specific adoption request and the cited funding program is not currently accepting proposals.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":3,"rationale":"Typed exits, staged logged reintroduction, and explicit provenance outcomes may improve on a general take-your-time instruction, but that incremental benefit has not been tested.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":2,"rationale":"The central moves—avoiding leading content, tolerating silence, wait-time rules, and auditing interviewer language—already exist. Distinctiveness is limited to their field-linguistic combination and outcome definition.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"The protocol requires no new hardware or algorithm and can use ordinary recordings and transcripts; the main technical burden is reliable timing and prompt-history coding.","source_ids":["S1","S5"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":3,"rationale":"Project leads can approve workflow changes after participant, community, and institutional review, but authority is distributed and no actual approval or community partner has been secured.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The intervention, comparators, observable events, and falsifiers are clear, and adjacent evidence informs implementation. Target-domain prevalence and comparative outcomes still require proprietary recordings and live testing.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S4","S5"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":3,"rationale":"Explicit pass, clarification, accessibility, and interruption routes could improve agency over unstructured silence, but higher-status silence may itself convey evaluation or pressure unless locally validated.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"scalability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Once calibrated, scripts, cues, training, and coding templates are inexpensive to replicate across sessions; cultural, linguistic, and accessibility calibration prevents a universal fixed interval.","source_ids":["S5","S6","S7"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One partnered, counterbalanced feasibility study with 6–10 consultants, 24 low-sensitivity items per consultant, three conditions, participant compensation, recording, two independent coders, debriefing, and analysis.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["Existing recording equipment and secure storage are available.","Existing project and community relationships avoid travel and recruitment infrastructure costs.","Resource equivalent includes approximately 25–60 investigator days, 20–50 coder days, participant time, consent amendment, and indirect administrative effort.","This is an estimate, not a vendor quote or current funding commitment."],"source_ids":["S5","S7","S8"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"Single-project protocol drafting, community review, accessible cue design, fieldworker training, coding-sheet configuration, and a short dry run.","confidence":"MODERATE","assumptions":["One existing project, one or two fieldworkers, and no new software procurement.","Community review and ethics amendment are bounded rather than a new full application.","Two to ten staff/community-partner days are valued as resource equivalents."],"source_ids":["S5","S7"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Launch across a multi-fieldworker documentation project, including calibration workshops, compensated community review, training, double-coded quality assurance, and protocol monitoring.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Three to eight fieldworkers and multiple consultants participate.","No international travel, new recording equipment, or major translation contract is included.","The estimate covers a project-level launch, not a national or multi-community rollout."],"source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"UNDER_10K","scope":"Per-project annual refresher training, cue updates, spot double-coding, participant-feedback review, and protocol deviation reporting.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["The protocol is embedded in already funded sessions.","Ten percent or less of eligible items receive second-coder quality assurance after launch.","Major community renegotiation, travel, transcription of unrelated session content, and ordinary fieldwork costs are excluded."],"source_ids":["S7","S8"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Target-domain guidance directly documents priming from linguistic stimuli and unreliable reactions when fieldworkers press because they do not tolerate silence.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"Relevant funders, PIs, community partners, and ethics authorities are identifiable, but no specific organization or community has expressed intent to adopt or authorize this protocol, and the cited NSF/NEH solicitation is presently closed.","source_ids":["S7","S8"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"YES","reason":"The claim specifies two comparators, a target population, a four-part intervention, primary provenance outcomes, and safety/clarity counter-outcomes.","source_ids":["S1","S3","S5"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A small within-participant, counterbalanced study can be capped by consultants, items, conditions, coding variables, and predeclared falsifiers.","source_ids":["S4","S5"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The design contains appropriate immediate exits and rollback, but culture-specific meanings of silence, accessibility, non-coercion, community authorization, and institutional approval remain unresolved for any actual site.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"YES","reason":"All four estimates specify project boundaries, staffing assumptions, exclusions, and broad resource-equivalent bands; uncertainty is retained because no site-specific labor, compensation, travel, or overhead rates were available.","source_ids":["S5","S7","S8"]}},"next_evidence_step":"With one community partner, project lead, and institutional reviewer approving the design, recruit 6–10 consenting adult consultants and preselect 24 low-sensitivity items per consultant. Randomize eight matched items each to ordinary flexible elicitation, a take-your-time instruction, and the protected-window protocol. Calibrate the maximum interval through participant rehearsal rather than impose a universal duration. Two blinded coders should label researcher linguistic material before the first consultant move, answer/pass/clarification/visible-response status, introduced-form reuse, repair episodes, departures, and provenance sufficiency; require inter-coder agreement of kappa at least 0.80 before outcome analysis. After each condition, obtain accessible ratings of cue comprehension and pressure. Falsify incremental benefit if the protected condition's point estimate for initial-prompt-only analyzable responses is no higher than either comparator, or if it increases unresolved repair, misunderstood cues, or reported pressure by at least 10 percentage points. Halt immediately for any consent misunderstanding, distress, or inaccessible exit, and revert to the approved ordinary protocol.","blocking_evidence":["No estimate of how often premature researcher material occurs in recordings from an actual target project.","No protocol-specific expression of need or adoption commitment from a language community, documentation project, ethics body, or current funder.","No adult linguistic-fieldwork trial comparing the full protocol with ordinary interviewing and a take-your-time instruction.","No locally validated cue, interval distribution, pass mechanism, or accessibility design.","No demonstrated inter-coder reliability for distinguishing new researcher linguistic material, first moves, reuse, and provenance sufficiency.","No evidence that improved first-response provenance outweighs lost clarification or reduced collaboratively constructed evidence."],"research_disposition":"PARTNERED_RESEARCH_PROGRAM","world_novelty_boundary":"The search found no exact adult linguistic-fieldwork protocol combining a pre-cued single prompt, protected response interval, typed non-response states, consultant-controlled exits, staged logged reintroduction, and provenance-based comparative outcomes. It did find substantial collision in target-domain guidance, wait-time protocols, clean interviewing, and prompt-influence research. This is not an exhaustive world-novelty search; patentability, freedom to operate, market size, realized impact, and world novelty remain unmeasured.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":true,"progress_targets":["Obtain a protocol-specific commitment and authority map from one community partner, one project lead, and the relevant institutional reviewer.","Measure baseline prevalence and provenance ambiguity in a preregistered audit of eligible recordings from at least one target project.","Complete the three-condition counterbalanced field pilot with locally calibrated timing and accessible answer/pass/clarification exits.","Demonstrate at least 0.80 inter-coder agreement for prompt intrusion, first-move type, introduced-form reuse, repair, and provenance sufficiency.","Show benefit over both ordinary elicitation and a take-your-time instruction without the prespecified pressure, comprehension, repair, consent, or accessibility falsifiers.","Publish the interval distribution, departures, adverse experiences, null results, and community-approved limits rather than only successful response examples."],"reason":"Open-web evidence verifies the mechanism, shows that close analogues already exist, and supports a technically bounded pilot, but it cannot establish target-project prevalence, adopter authorization, culture-specific safety, or incremental effect. Those questions require access to recordings, community and institutional coordination, and live comparative fieldwork; therefore the evaluation must stop for empirical research rather than request more bounded web research."},"proposal_index":2}