MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964226166 · doi:10.3968/11147

Discourse Patterns in Selected Science-Based Postgraduate Theses’ Abstracts

2019· article· en· W2964226166 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sade Olagunju

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPronounLinguisticsSentenceNounNoun phraseRealization (probability)Theme (computing)Computer scienceMeaning (existential)Systemic functional linguisticsPsychologyMathematicsWorld Wide WebPhilosophyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper identified and analysed patterns of discourse thematic progression (TP) in Science-Based postgraduate theses abstracts in selected universities in Southwestern Nigeria. It described the linguistic realization of TPs across the identified four motifs of text such as introduction, methodology, findings and conclusion and also discussed the content of texts via the functional categories of texts. One hundred and fifty PhD theses abstracts out of six hundred and three abstracts produced in the Sciences of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, University of Ibadan and University of Lagos were selected through simple random sampling. An analysis of progression of theme and rheme was done on the selected abstracts by adopting the framework of the functional sentence perspective as propounded by Dane’s (1970 and 1974) and the systemic linguistic approach. The theme-rheme analysis of texts and their linguistic realization across the identified motifs was done to unravel the content of the abstracts. The findings showed that all TP patterns (Constant TP, Simple Linear TP, Derived TP and Split Rheme TP) featured in the text. The Constant TP predominates the text motifs of texts. These linguistics features largely associated with the Constant TP were the nominal phrases, noun, pronoun, cleft among others. The study concluded that text content, thematic patterns and linguistic features integrate to create meaning in text and one way to understand texts better is to unravel their patterns in texts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207