Poster Presentations as a Genre in Knowledge Communication: A Case Study of Forms, Norms, and Values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning to communicate research well through posters involves far more than formatting issues such as font size. The conventions of poster presentations as social practices are part of academic apprenticeship in many health disciplines. This case study examines doctoral students’ poster presentations as a research-process genre. The article maps genre knowledge required of novice researchers: poster form, creation processes, presentation practices, and underlying values. Complexity arises from the multiple roles that posters must fulfill, combined with formatting restrictions, the nature of audience interaction, and prestige issues. Posters are often considered as second class compared to oral presentations, perhaps unfairly. The reuse of posters raises questions about publication as academic currency and appropriate knowledge-exchange practices. Poster presentations are evolving with digital media, which may affect competence development in this multimodal form of research communication. Future research should consider how posters’ technology-influenced evolution affects interaction, communicative purposes, and the texts themselves.
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 | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".