MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594042290 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n3p182

The American Dream Revisited: A Corpus-Driven Study

2017· article· en· W2594042290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhide Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamIdeologySociocultural evolutionIdentity (music)SociologyCulture of the United StatesSet (abstract data type)Gender studiesSocial psychologyEpistemologyPsychologyAestheticsPolitical scienceComputer scienceLawAnthropologyArtPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a dominant ideology throughout America, the American Dream rests on the idea that with hard work and personal determination anyone, regardless of background, has equal opportunity to achieve his or her aspirations. Given the importance of the American Dream to American national identity, and the enormity of it in shaping dominant ideologies, this study explores this deeply-held belief and particular mind-set in media discourses related to the American Dream. Modeled on the approach of corpus-driven discourse analysis, and combining the framework of a sociocultual linguistic approach to identity and interaction, the article reports on a corpus-driven sociocultural discourse study which aims to discover, through the analysis of frequent lexical and semantic patterns, discursive characteristics of media discourses related to the American dream, and whether there are any changes of the American dream to American national identity and ideologies which might be developed in time and space.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207