Metadiscoursal Markers in Medical and Literary Texts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English medical and literary texts were compared and contrasted to find out whether there were any significant differences between the two kinds of texts in terms of the number and types of metadiscoursal markers. To this end, first, 30 medical and literary journal articles were chosen. Then, 3 successive paragraphs were extracted randomly from each of the selected articles which totaled 90 paragraphs out of which 45 were medical and 45 literary. The frequency and type of metadiscoursal markers in each text were investigated in accordance with Vande Kopple’s (1985) taxonomy. Next, the total number of metadiscoursal items in each type of the texts under study was determined. Finally, the Chi-square test was applied to the collected data to compare medical and literary texts. The statistical results gained through the computer suggested that there was a significant difference in the amount and type of metadiscoursal markers in medical and literary texts.
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 | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".