Evaluative Language in English Job Advertisements in Diachronic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The received view has it that genres are subject to historical changes with respect to their functional and language features. The purpose of this article is to examine changes in the evaluation language employed in the genre of British job advertisement, in this way revealing shifts and developments in this type of discourse practice. Drawing on evidence from the corpus of job advertisements published in the Times, the national British newspaper, in the period between 1896 and 2006, this paper proposes an analysis of evaluative language usage in three collections of job advertisements from late nineteenth, middle twentieth centuries, and the 2000s. The regularities present in the data were calculated manually for every period under consideration. The comparative analysis of the data obtained for each of the synchronic layers introduces diachronic perspective into the study by revealing changes in evaluative language throughout the periods as they are reflected in an average ratio of adjectives per text, distribution of evaluative and descriptive adjectives, frequency of the entities evaluated and semantic variation of the adjectives used to evaluate entities. The aim of the study is to understand the changing role of evaluation in the genre, the way evaluative adjectives work, the role they play in persuading the applicant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".