MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904541101 · doi:10.5430/elr.v7n4p22

Self-Profiling and Agenda Marketing in Buhari’s May 29, 2018 Broadcast and Adjoining Pronouncements

2018· article· en· W2904541101 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abayomi O. Ayansola

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyMandatePoliticsDeclarationDemocracyProfiling (computer programming)SociologyPresidential electionPolitical sciencePublic relationsPublic administrationLawMedia studiesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering that the discursive structures in political discourse often manifest the ideological properties of language and the choices that speakers make from a number of alternative words are self-serving, this paper evaluates the Nigerian President, Muhammadu Buhari’s linguistic strategies of self-profiling and political agenda marketing. Data were excerpted from Buhari’s May 29, 2018 Democracy Day broadcast, “The-Not-Too-Young-to-Run-Bill” and his Press Statement announcing a posthumous Award to the winner of June 12, 1993 Presidential Election and the declaration of June 12 as Democracy Day in Nigeria. The study, based on Critical Discourse Analysis, revealed that self-profiling and agenda marketing in these texts manifested language ideologies which were instantiated through the co-option of critical stakeholders, performance profiling and agenda-setting which were aimed at halting the low performance rating of the president but to earn him re-election in 2019. Buhari’s pronouncements and, by extension, his ideology, were political gimmicks aimed at enlisting the support of Nigerians and hoodwink them into giving him a fresh mandate. The study’s interrogation of Buhari’s pre-election pronouncements could guide the public in their reaction to the ideologies of politicians.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207