MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generic Structure of Research Article Abstracts

2010· article· en· W2130084256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dong Hai-lin, Huan Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwaleKey (lock)MacroLinguisticsComputer scienceSociologyEcologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an academic genre, the research article (RA) abstracts play an important role in academic community. This paper aims to explore the differences between RA abstracts by native and non-native speakers of English in terms of the generic structure. Theoretically, the commonly accepted IMRD model (Introduction-Method-Results-Discussion) and Swale’s Move-Step model are adopted to analyse the macro- and micro-structure respectively. It is found that the Introduction Move is obligatory for English RA abstracts by non-native speakers as opposed to the Introduction and the Results move by native speakers. Key words: Research Article; ; GeGenre Analysisneric Structure

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainReporting
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207