MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109640497

Rhetorical genre theory and academic literacy

2014· article· en· W2109640497 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of academic language and learning · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionInterpretation (philosophy)LiteracyPerspective (graphical)Action (physics)Repetition (rhetorical device)SociologyElement (criminal law)Discourse communityLinguisticsRhetorical modesEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New theories of genre have looked beyond repetition in textual features to consider the social conditions that produce and result from standardised discourse. These theories seek to understand patterns in the production, distribution, and interpretation of certain texts. One such approach, rhetorical genre theory, views standardised texts as one element in larger patterns of social action—that is, as part of collectively organized strategies to get something done. From this perspective, it is possible to see that the situations to which generic texts respond, and the consequences they produce, are likewise regulated and regularized. This article takes a look at academic literacy through a rhetorical genre lens. In particular, it considers the doctoral thesis and asks what consequences result from the typified rhetorical action associated with that text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.819

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.292 · 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