MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32955065 · doi:10.1039/d0cs00997k

Reductions of the Already Reduced: The Neglect of Qualifiers, Rebuttals, and Backing in Appropriations of the ‘Toulmin Model’ in Contemporary Composition Pedagogy

2005· article· en· W32955065 on OpenAlexaff
David Flemming, Melvin Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Society Reviews · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNorthwestern University
KeywordsRhetoricComposition (language)Argumentation theoryArgumentativeArgument (complex analysis)AppropriationEpistemologyVariety (cybernetics)SociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyLinguisticsChemistryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the first reports of metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), this unique class of crystalline, porous materials has garnered increasing attention in a wide variety of applications such as gas storage and separation, catalysis, enzyme immobilization, drug delivery, water capture, and sensing. A fundamental feature of MOFs is their porosity which provides space on the micro- and meso-scale for confining and exposing their functionalities. Therefore, designing MOFs with high porosity and developing suitable activation methods for preserving and accessing their pore space have been a common theme in MOF research. Reticular chemistry allows for the facile design of MOFs from highly tunable metal nodes and organic linkers in order to realize different pore structures, topologies, and functionalities. With the hope of shedding light on future research endeavors in MOF porosity, it is worthwhile to examine the development of MOFs, with an emphasis on their porosity and how to properly access their pore space. In this review, we will provide an overview of the historic evolution of porosity and activation of MOFs, followed by a synopsis of the strategies to design and preserve permanent porosity in MOFs.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Society ReviewsSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207