A Pragmatic Study of Concealment in Tony Blair’s Speeches on Iraq War
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concealment, among other crucial notions appeared during the process of political discourse analysis, means hiding the truth by one of the parties participating in the communication event who intends to deceive the other party. It is either the manipulation of information or changing the truth whether intentionally or unintentionally or a deceptive strategy. It is considered as one of the means used by politicians to achieve certain goals and aims, of them is influencing the behaviors, desires, beliefs and emotions of their audience to their self-interests.The main concern of the current study is to discuss the concept of concealment in Tony Blair’s speeches on Iraq during the time of UN sanctions on Iraq and during the time of the preparation for the war on Iraq.The study is carried out with the aim of specifying the concealment criteria, pinpointing the strategies of concealment used to fulfill each stage of concealment, and finally highlighting the pragmatic strategies of concealment resorted to by Blair in his speeches and finding out which pragmatic strategies score higher frequency in these speeches.The findings show that the main aim of Blair in concealing facts in his speeches is to achieve persuasion. To achieve this aim, pragma-rhetoric devices, as a pragmatic strategy, are highly used and they score the highest frequency.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it