MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747131273 · doi:10.31468/cjsdwr.44

Han Yu (2015). The Other Kind of Funnies: Comics in Technical Communication. New York, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.

2016· article· en· W2747131273 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Suzanne Rintoul

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComicsCLARITYPublishingNatural (archaeology)RhetoricReading (process)Technical communicationStyle (visual arts)Nexus (standard)Writing styleSociologyMedia studiesVisual artsHistoryLiteratureComputer scienceArtPolitical scienceLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Han Yu’s "The Other Kind of Funnies: Comics in Technical Communication" challenges the notion that technical writing is too “rational” or “serious” to accommodate the conventions of comics-style communication. She does this by illustrating comics’ unique ability to distill and reinforce information in ways entirely appropriate not just for complementing the purposes of many technical writers, but also for fulfilling the needs of their diverse audiences. The book’s major strength lies in Yu’s capacity to locate the productive nexus between two ostensibly dissimilar modes so that by the final chapter those connections seem not only probable, but natural. This text will be especially useful to scholars of rhetoric (particularly those invested in visual culture and/or technical writing) and practitioners of technical writing eager to embrace new (or in some cases re-embrace older) ways of seeing the relationship between textual and visual elements. The clarity with which Yu distils complex theoretical concepts makes this book appropriate reading for undergraduate or graduate courses as well as for non-scholarly audiences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscourse and Writing/RédactologieSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207