MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176057492 · doi:10.15366/ria2021.22.005

Argumentos fuertes

2021· article· es· W3176057492 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher W. Tindale, Rose Marie Barrientos

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Iberoamericana de Argumentación · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Teacher Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong arguments have adherence; relevance; proximity; objectivity; and a high resistance to refutation. These are the criteria provided by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, and they effectively capture how rhetorical argumentation theorists should view argumentative force. But each of these criteria warrants some specific discussion to fully appreciate its importance. In this way, we see that, contrary to some criticism, rhetorical argumentation does not just measure arguments in terms of effectiveness. We provide these comments as part of a discussion of Corina Yoris-Villasana’s paper on argument strength from a rhetorical perspective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Iberoamericana de ArgumentaciónSame topicEducation and Teacher TrainingFrench-language works237,207