MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907871532 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v9n1p79

Ethnicity and the Pragmatic Strategies in American Christian Sermons

2018· article· en· W2907871532 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ahmed Sahib Mubarak, Hawraa Jabbar Rahi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyEthnic groupVariety (cybernetics)African americanWhite (mutation)Variable (mathematics)SociologyGender studiesSocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceLawAnthropologyMathematicsBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is concerned with the pragmatic aspects in American Christian sermons by White-American and African-American preachers. The study aims at detecting the noticeable differences between preachers in terms of the pragmatic strategies and tracing the social variable of ethnicity. The data under scrutiny are selected from official websites in forms of videos transcribed by the researchers and then analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The two types of analysis help the study to arrive at a variety of conclusions, the most central of which is there are considerable differences between the White-American and African-American preachers regarding their use of the pragmatic strategies. It also concludes that the social variable of ethnicity affects the African-American preachers more than their counterpart.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207