MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994517621

On the Theoretical Framework of the Study of Discourse Cohesion and Coherence

2014· article· en· W2994517621 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gang Wang, Qiao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohesion (chemistry)LinguisticsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)GrammarThematic structureComputer scienceEpistemologySystemic functional linguisticsSociologyPhilosophyMathematicsPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper looks back at the definitions of cohesion and coherence, the relationship between the two, and relevant theories. Though cohesion and coherence research has made great achievement, for various reasons, there is little consensus to the nature of coherence and coherence research approaches. Accordingly, the main theoretical framework of the present study is established on the foundation of Haliday and Hasan’s cohesive devices, Halliday’s two metafunctional notions in Systemic- Functional Grammar—thematic structure and information structure, van Dijk’s propositional macrostructure and Hasan’s generic structure.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207