MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589440926 · doi:10.37693/pjos.2014.6.11945

The CARS Model and Binary Opposition Structure

2014· article· en· W1589440926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomoko Sawaki

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Journal of Semiotics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinary oppositionOpposition (politics)PostmodernismComputer scienceSemioticsEpistemologySociologyBinary numberMathematicsArithmeticPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes solutions for a number of difficulties that Swalean generic structure analysis has been experiencing concerning the identification methods it applies to generic structure components. It does this by integrating the Greimassian method, a structuralist method of reducing elements to the minimal units of signification. In making this proposal, it points out that the underlying goal of Swalean genre analysis, which aims to classify various academic elements that differ in their degree of prototypicality into an umbrella of family resemblance, can be considered analogous to the structuralist goal of reducing elements to the minimal units despite the different theoretical groundings of these two approaches. It demonstrates the compatibility of these approaches by reducing some of the components of the Creating A Research Space (CARS) model; namely, it reduces Move 1 and Move 2 into one unit. Additional emerging elements that are similarly complex in academic writing, such as postmodern personal anecdotes, can also be sorted out into this unit. It concludes that methods in semiotics may offer useful frameworks for the applied disciplines where signification processes need to be revealed in analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Journal of SemioticsSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207