Bibliographic record
Abstract
From a rhetorical point of view, reading is not an isolated process of absorbing the meaning of words in a text but a creative activity in which the reader constructs meaning through the symbolic exchange with the text in a particular situation. This study elaborates on the rhetorical features of literary texts through the lens of rhetorical situation, rhetorical purpose, and Aristotle’s three means of persuasion. It then illustrates how to approach a literary text rhetorically through the interpretation of Sandra Cisneros’ The House on Mango Street, shedding light on the development of critical reading in literary instruction. The study displays the literary text’s rhetoricity and demonstrates that the rhetorical approach enables the readers to explore the persuasive mechanism of a literary text, examine the sources the writer marshals to adapt to the audience and make their judgments based on the ethical, emotional, and logical proofs. Furthermore, the rhetorical approach to literary reading provides theoretical ground for a rhetorical mode of literary instruction, which directs our focus on the readers’ constructive role and creates more space for individual interpretation. In this way, a rhetorical approach to literary reading plays a significant role in developing student readers’ creativity, critical thinking, and rhetorical awareness both in reading and writing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".