The circulation of discourse: The case of deprecating remarks on trash radio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because it is provocative and is based on the denigration of absent third parties, shock jock discourse stimulates reactions that go well beyond the initial circle of listeners. Trash radio supporters and detractors alike take up the hosts’ deprecating remarks, reinterpret them and put them back into circulation. As the repetitions multiply, interweaving private speech and public speech, a complex web of circulation forms, attesting to the contagiousness of the discourse and the influence of the radio hosts. In order to capture and explain this mechanism of propagation, we propose a model of analysis that combines elements of linguistic, discursive and pragmatic description. The model is illustrated by a case study. We are led to observe that the extent and rate of propagation of deprecating remarks inevitably affect the image of the person targeted and, more fundamentally, tend to make an aggressive mode of expression part of the natural speechscape.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".