Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers’ Effort and Focus in Ad Processing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research demonstrates that rhetorical figures differentially affect the extent of ad processing. Specifically, tropes (a type of figure) deviate more from expected language use than schemes, with the greater deviation yielding more extensive ad processing. We extend previous research in two ways by focusing on the incongruity differences that exist between schemes and tropes. Study 1 uses syndicated data (Starch readership scores) to test how figures combine to affect the extent of processing. Results show that when figures leverage unique mechanisms (i.e., schemes and tropes), their combination yields incremental processing gains. Alternatively, when figures leverage redundant mechanisms (e.g., multiple tropes), their combination yields no incremental processing. Study 2 is an experiment that tests how figures separate in affecting the focus of ad processing. Results show that schemes generate a generalized focus on the entire ad, including both ad-stylistic and message-related aspects, while tropes generate a more selective focus on message-related aspects.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it