MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171989393 · doi:10.3968/11564

A Corpus-Based Comparative Study of Lexical Bundles in PhD Dissertation Abstracts in Physical Sciences and Arts and Humanities

2020· article· en· W3171989393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhou Bin

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsLinguisticsSubordination (linguistics)HumanitiesArtPhilosophyVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze Phd theses abstracts in terms of the frequency and function of lexical bundles. A corpus of of the PhD thesis abstracts collections in FLAX in the field of Physical Sciences and Arts and Humanities were compared. A linguistic analysis of the bundles shows that the lexical bundles found in the sub-corpus of Physical Sciences included more clausal elements and subordination, while bundles used in PhD thesis abstracts of Arts and Humanities were more phrasal in nature.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0210.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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