MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921728798 · doi:10.1080/10572252.2019.1588376

Durable Research, Portable Findings: Rhetorical Methods in Case Study Research

2019· article· en· W2921728798 on OpenAlexafffund
Devon Moriarty, Paula Núñez De Villavicencio, Lillian A. Black, Monica Bustos, Helen Cai, Brad Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical Communication Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
KeywordsRhetoricRhetorical questionConstruct (python library)Variety (cybernetics)Technical writingTechnical communicationEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceHigher educationLinguisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case studies have been a central methodology employed by scholars working in the rhetoric of science and technical communication. However, concerns have been raised about how cases are constructed and collected, and what they convey. The authors reflect on how rhetoricians of science and technical communication researchers can – and do – construct a variety of case-based mixed-methods studies in ways that may make our research more portable and durable without undercutting the important and central role of case-based analysis.

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)0.382
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.495
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3820.495
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0080.059
Scholarly communication0.0240.035
Open science0.0080.021
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical Communication QuarterlySame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207