MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000082275 · doi:10.1386/ejpc_00006_1

Conciliatory aggression and the rhetoric of public apologies: A rhetorical analysis

2019· article· en· W3000082275 on OpenAlexaff
Gary McCarron

Bibliographic record

VenueEmpedocles European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrongdoingBlameAppealRhetorical questionPleaRhetoricRemorseCriticismLawCriminologySociologyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyLiteraturePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article provides a rhetorical analysis of a public apology that was issued by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh in response to criticism of on-air comments that he made in February 2012. I argue that Limbaugh deployed his apology as a plea for moral exoneration, not as a formal admission of misconduct. Hence his apology was meant to absolve Limbaugh from blame by offsetting acknowledgements of wrongdoing (along with expressions of remorse) with an appeal to truth as a force for exculpation.

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)0.003
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 score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmpedocles European Journal for the Philosophy of CommunicationSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207