lIlness as argumentation: a prolegomenon to the rhetorical study of contestable complaints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resources of rhetorical theory, the classical theory of persuasion, can be marshaled to help physicians evaluate patient complaints for which there is no corresponding objective evidence and which rely, therefore, on the persuasiveness of patients to be taken seriously (contestable complaints). An appropriate focus for the evaluation of such complaints is argumentation itself: what, in the absence of objective evidence of disease, counts as a good argument for a patient to be eligible for medical attention? How do patients convince physicians that they are ill and in need of care - and, conversely, how do physicians convince patients, when the need arises, that they are well and not good candidates for medical intervention? Two rhetorical concepts are especially productive for the analysis of argumentation. One is kairos, the Sophistic notion of contingency, and the other is pisteis, the Aristotelian catalogue of persuasive appeals. A focus on types of arguments directs attention away from types of patients (difficult, suspect, malingering and so on), and provides a more neutral means of judging claims to illness.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| 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".