{"id":"W2073976188","doi":"10.1177/1363459307074695","title":"lIlness as argumentation: a prolegomenon to the rhetorical study of contestable complaints","year":2007,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Health An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine","topic":"Mental Health and Psychiatry","field":"Arts and Humanities","cited_by":17,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of British Columbia","funders":"","keywords":"Argumentation theory; Persuasion; Rhetorical question; Argument (complex analysis); Suspect; Epistemology; Rhetoric; Focus (optics); Intervention (counseling); Psychology; Medicine; Social psychology; Philosophy; Psychiatry; Linguistics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["sts"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00651123,0.0002043751,0.000764274,0.0001482827,0.01540806,0.00003043633,0.0003102417,0.00003082888,0.0001338761],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00002766697,0.0001080047,0.00005630024,0.0001410976,0.0002364163,0.0001065696,0.0001187789,0.0003812772,0.000001071279],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001579644,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0002311784,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.006407891,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.02667678,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9964844,0.0004666237,0.001613652,0.0002351769,0.0006163779,0.0005837855],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9976971,0.0003894493,0.001002464,0.0001834356,0.0002600543,0.0004675037],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"qualitative","study_design_gemma":"qualitative","study_design_scores_codex":[0.002336614,0.002878471,0.001567788,0.0004781003,0.00007888578,0.000002092005,0.9024032,0.00000291415,3.692741e-7,0.005328731,0.00711185,0.077811],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.003941025,0.04154577,0.01059495,0.0002348474,0.00004349659,0.00002701894,0.9266937,0.00001433227,4.386146e-7,0.001133053,0.01566881,0.000102591],"study_design_candidate":"qualitative","study_design_consensus":"qualitative","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9466759,0.001806399,0.0002735762,0.04139154,0.00446144,0.004881172,0.00002440558,0.00001237773,0.0004731813],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9951713,0.0000482758,0.0000089458,0.002186167,0.002117584,0.0001263273,0.000006717523,0.00002052887,0.0003141214],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.07770841,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9910839,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.115086338046393,"score_gpt":0.4750521412026166,"score_spread":0.3599658031562236,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}