MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rhetoric and Social Epistemology

2014· reference-entry· en· W2197275125 on OpenAlexaff
Lorraine Code

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricRhetorical questionSubjectivityEpistemologyLegitimacySocial epistemologySociologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLinguisticsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines the place and effects of rhetoric in social epistemology, taking its point of entry from the rhetorical strategies implicit in Rachel Carson’s landmark book, Silent Spring, and showing how the assumptions of rhetorically neutral epistemology are contested in the new social epistemologies of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. When place and epistemic subjectivity claim a constitutive part in hitherto dislocated inquiry, rhetorical strategies claim a new legitimacy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.039
Scholarly communication0.0140.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207