MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590137324

A Contrastive Study of Political Speeches in Presidential Election of Interpersonal Meaning

2013· article· en· W1590137324 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pengsun Jin, Fengfeng Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal communicationMeaning (existential)Modality (human–computer interaction)Personal pronounMoodSocial psychologyPsychologyPoliticsPresidential electionPresidential systemPerspective (graphical)LinguisticsPolitical scienceLawComputer sciencePhilosophyPsychotherapist
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis attempts to use the interpersonal function in SFL as a tool to analyze the interpersonal meaning in the election speeches given by Obama and McCain. From the aspect of mood, modality, and personal pronoun, it tries to explore the interpersonal meaning contained in the election speeches of Obama and McCain, and tries to explain why Obama performs better than McCain. The two famous speeches are analyzed from the perspective of mood, modality, and the personal pronoun system.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207