Circumstances and their Roles in the Development of Editorials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study identified and categorised the features of the circumstantial options in the selected newspaper editorials and interpreted the content expressed by the options. The options were then compared to the opinions expressed in the text. These were done with a view to investigating the roles played by circumstances in the development of editorials. Data for the study were elicited from newspapers. Seven editorials were purposively selected from the 28 editorials collected. The selected editorials cut across different aspects of life, including safety and security, crime, politics, economics and religion. Each editorial was broken down into sentences, but only the main clauses in the sentences were analysed. The findings revealed that some circumstantial options were prominent in the texts. These included location, manner, extent and cause. They also revealed that with circumstances in editorials, editorials can help to articulate a better understanding of the news media, the unique handling of language and text, and the impact on thought and culture. The study concluded that the experiential meta-function in systemic functional linguistics helped to highlight the features of editorials.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".