MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1990022978 · doi:10.1353/scp.0.0004

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)

2008· article· en· W1990022978 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen K. Donovan

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePublishing and Scholarly Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSalarySociologyAudience measurementMedia studiesPublic relationsPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,995
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,123

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,006
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0370,061

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,103
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,195 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Scholarly PublishingMême sujetPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationTravaux en français237 207