Biblical Evaluative Discourse of Speech and Thought Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to highlight the evaluative strategies associated with the Biblical modes of speech and thought presentation. An eclectic pragma-stylistic model of analysis is developed to test the validity of the hypotheses that the targeted modes of discourse are almost always internally and/or externally evaluated by the narrator, and that the reportive modes of speech and thought are evaluative in respect to the quotative modes. The study arrived to the conclusion that different modes of speech and thought are exploited in building narrative genres. These modes form two interrelated types of discourse: quotative and reportive. Four modes contribute to the occurrence of the quotative discourse which are direct speech, free direct speech, direct thought, and free direct thought. The reportive discourse occurs when using one of the reportive modes which include indirect speech, free indirect speech, narrative report of speech act, narrator’s representation of voice, indirect thought, free indirect thought, narrative report of thought act, and internal narration. When employed in the targeted Biblical discourse, the quotative and reportive modes are often evaluated by the Biblical narrator. Evaluations of this kind implicate additional meanings and affect reader’s interpretation of the represented speeches or thoughts. The Biblical reportive modes are often evaluative in respect to the quotative ones. The Biblical narrator’s internal, external, and interactional evaluative strategies contribute to the occurrence of the Biblical evaluative discourse of speech and thought presentation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".