MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1916523017 · doi:10.5430/elr.v4n2p17

Speech Acts in Billboard Messages of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, Redemption Camp, Nigeria: A Pragmatic Study

2015· article· en· W1916523017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Idowu Odebode, Oluwabukola Dabi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Order (exchange)Speech actAdvertisingPsychologySociologyLinguisticsEpistemologyPhilosophyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several studies have existed on various aspects of advertisement billboards and stickers, using different scholastic approaches. But none, to the best of our knowledge, has delved into the pragmatic analysis of religious billboards in The Redeemed Christian Church of God, Redemption Camp, Nigeria. This study is an attempt at filling this gap. The study is based on Austin's (1962) Speech Act theory. Seventeen billboards which were purposively selected served as our data. The data were analysed based on the theory in order to validate the following research questions: What are the pragmatic elements inherent in the billboards? What types of speech acts are preponderant in the billboards? Can we establish that the billboards communicate meaningful messages to the worshippers? The study indicated a preponderance of the illocutionary acts of informing and advising and demonstrated that the billboards are inundated with various meaning-making strategies which enhance their multifarious interpretations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207