MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606289039 · doi:10.5539/elt.v10n5p68

Rhetorical Interpretation of Abstracts in Sci-Tech Theses Based on Burke’s Identification Theory

2017· article· en· W2606289039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jihong Zhong

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language Teaching · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJiangsu University
KeywordsPsychologyAntithesisIdentification (biology)SympathyPersuasionObjectivity (philosophy)EpistemologyInterpretation (philosophy)Perspective (graphical)Rhetorical questionRepresentation (politics)LinguisticsSocial psychologyArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract of a thesis is the brief and accurate representation of the thesis, with the important function of persuading readers to read on the thesis. So how the writer constructs the abstract and wins readers’ recognition is our main focus. On the basis of Burke’s Identification Theory, this paper analyzed 10 abstracts from Nature from content and form perspective respectively. The results show that identifications by sympathy, by antithesis and by inaccuracy are three main content identification strategies and conventional form is the main form identification strategy, which combine together to improve the objectivity and persuasion of abstracts.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language TeachingSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207