Rhetorical Analysis of Stand-Up Comedy: A Case Study of Indonesian and Canadian Comedians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on analysing the aspect of rhetoric between Women Overthink, Men Underthink, Russell Peters and Cowok Pasti Bohong, Tentang Cowok dan Cewek, Raditya Dika. The purpose of the analysis is to find the aspects of rhetoric are used by a script. This paper applies qualitative research and exposition methods, by analyzing, classifying and comparison the script using Robert and Warren's rhetorical theory and Greene's persuasion in stand-up comedy theory. Based on the findings of this research, it is concluded that style, Raditya Dika's and Russel Peters's script is irony tones to compare the habits and characters of men and women using informal as casual conversations with good friends. Diction, Raditya Dika's script is abstract then concrete and denotation meaning. Meanwhile, Russell Peters and Raditya Dika's scripts are specific, then an abstract and denotation meaning. Metaphor, Raditya Dika's script is Half-dead Metaphor. Meanwhile, the Russell Peters script is not finding a metaphor. The implication of this research is to introduce rhetorical analysis into stand-up comedy content.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".