MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075476045 · doi:10.4000/communication.2330

Argumenter pour ou contre son opinion

2011· article· fr· W2075476045 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Céline Beaudet, Denis Alamargot

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPathosHumanitiesEthosSociologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette recherche évalue comment des étudiants en communication professionnelle peuvent composer un texte argumentatif en faisant abstraction de leurs convictions personnelles. L’analyse des arguments produits montre que l’accent est mis sur l’ethos et le pathos plutôt que sur le logos, pour influencer le lecteur par l’identification et les émotions. Des pistes didactiques pour amener les étudiants à se détacher de leurs propres opinions sont proposées en conclusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunicationSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207