A Rhetorical Analysis of Selected Editorials of Newswatch and Tell Magazines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorials are comments on news items that are of national interest and which attract the attention of the editor. Such news items may be political, economic, educational, religious or general socio-political issues that border on the welfare of the people. An editorial expresses a personal opinion of the editor on such matters and it is like an essay written by an individual editor, during which the editor exhibits his personal creative style. This variety of style that is commonly exhibited in journalese is known as House Style. This paper belongs to a significant aspect of the English language study known as Stylistics. Stylistics is a central component of Rhetoric which is a linguistic activity that treats the devices that convey meaning in language. It studies the persuasive and emotional effects of language and attempt to understand how linguistic devices create these effects. It emphasizes essentially the linguistic devices, the social aspect of language and its impact in a particular context. Rhetorical Stylistics identifies and isolates the linguistic features that constitute the style of a text. This paper uses stylistic models to examine the rhetorical devices in Newswatch and Tell Magazines which constitute a House Style that is different from other forms of writing. The paper concludes that rhetorical devices are essential components for embellishing thought and to reflect the local colour of language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".