The Old and the New: The Relationship Between Intertextuality and Originality in Writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deftly negotiating the abstract and applied, Daniella Conley’s essay achieves what we all strive for in our teaching and our research. In its cogent application of theory to practice, the essay takes up some disparate and complex ideas about intertextuality, audience, and originality articulated by writers and theorists as well known as Charles Bazerman, Walter Ong, and Mark Twain. It is through this social constructionist lens that Daniella considers what it means to be “original,” and it is in the nebulous and troublesome concept we know as “style,” she argues, that we can find more than the moving yet contiguous parts that make up Twain’s kaleidoscope of “new and curious combinations.” Even in a context inseparable from those who have already written and those who have yet to read, and as much as the written utterance may be shaped by both, it remains equally true that poets are born as well as made - style may indeed make the writer but, Daniella reminds us, there is no denying that the writer also makes style. —Dr. Lyn Bennett
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".