How to Write for a General Audience: A Guide for Academics Who Want to Share Their Knowledge with the World and Have Fun Doing It (review)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: How to Write for a General Audience: A Guide for Academics Who Want to Share Their Knowledge with the World and Have Fun Doing It Stephen K. Donovan (bio) Kathleen A. Kendall-Tackett . How to Write for a General Audience: A Guide for Academics Who Want to Share Their Knowledge with the World and Have Fun Doing It. Washington, DC: APA Life Tools, 2007. Pp. xiv, 286. Paper: ISBN-13 978-0-9792125-3-6, US$19.95. doi: 10.3138/jsp.39.3.318 Yet another self-help book for the academic author? How many of these books do we need? Ask any editor and he or she will probably say there aren't enough, or, at least, that the authors who need to read such books aren't doing so. Yet How to Write for a General Audience (HWGA) isn't quite the same as many of the others, in that it encourages academic authors to spread their wings and write for a broader audience, rather than the handful of experts in the field who usually read their papers. Nevertheless, HWGA includes many suggestions that are more generally applicable. But surely academics are paid a salary to enable them, at least for part of the time, to write for other academics; why write for anyone else? That is, most academics write for an informed, albeit limited, circle of scholarly specialists. HWGA encourages the academic to write for an interested, larger, and wider audience. How is writing for many different from writing for a select group? Certainly, the element of debate with a small circle of like-minded experts is removed; although a general audience may still be disputatious, it is also more likely to regard Professor A or Dr B as carrying tablets of stone. Yet a more general audience can be broad, but still informed; in my own field, magazines such as Geology Today are popular with amateurs, students, and professionals alike. Kathleen Kendall-Tackett has written a book of many parts. Some of her ideas were already well known to me, while other suggestions were new, but all are interesting and well presented; as a member of a general audience (a geologist), the author (a health psychologist) kept me enthralled. Her style is both informative and persuasive, not least where examples and quotations provide support for her key ideas and recommendations. The first eight chapters deal with general themes that apply equally to writing articles [End Page 318] and writing books. Kendall-Tackett's approach is instructive, informative, and full of ideas on good presentation of academic concepts. There follow five chapters on book proposals, contracts, and marketing, perhaps not so broadly relevant but a useful primer for anyone writing or editing a first book. Chapter 2, 'Finding Time to Write: Time Management for Writers,' has something for all of us. The wall between productive writing and procrastination is thin;1 writing takes time, so any writer must make time to write.2 I also support the idea (18) that a productive author reads widely.3 This is something that I do naturally, and it has dawned on me only recently that my habit of reading at least a book per week feeds back into my writing in many ways, from improving my vocabulary to highlighting ideas in other fields that are applicable to my own. One of my own ways of encouraging progress when writing is to count the number of words after every writing session and record the latest figure at the end of the text, along with the date and time. This indicates my progress (or otherwise) every time I sit down to write. Even on days when writing is almost crowded out of my schedule, grabbing fifteen minutes to tidy a paragraph of a paper in preparation (as I'm doing right now) enables me to progress on that project, however minimally. Kendall-Tackett includes a section in this chapter on writing as a parent. At least three times per week I get up at least two hours before the children do; this works for me, but it is good to see other potential solutions mentioned. Chapter 3, 'Why We...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,035 | 0,050 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle