MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730110064 · doi:10.1075/aic.14.04gro

Editorial cartoons and ART

2017· book-chapter· en· W2730110064 on OpenAlexaff
Leo Groarke

Bibliographic record

VenueArgumentation in context · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgumentation theoryArgument (complex analysis)ScholarshipEpistemologyVisual artsAestheticsArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Though they are often ignored in serious scholarship, editorial cartoons are an important vehicle for multimodal arguing. The present chapter outlines an “ART” approach to editorial cartoons which is rooted in contemporary argumentation theory. A series of examples are used to show how cartoons can be analyzed as instances of argument. To illustrate the significance of particular cartoon motifs, the chapter focuses on cartoons that depict political figures as Pinocchio – the magical wooden puppet in Carlo Collodi’s renowned children’s novel. In a number of ways, these cartoons challenge traditional assumptions that characterize conventional accounts of argument – among them, the common claim that pictures cannot negate.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0040.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArgumentation in contextSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207