MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“The Great Communicator” and “The Great Talker” on the Radio: Projecting Presidential Personas

2002· article· en· W339222831 on OpenAlex
Lee Sigelman, Cynthia Whissell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePresidential Studies Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential systemRhetoricPolitical scienceCharacter (mathematics)PersonaLawLinguisticsArtHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the impressions thai two recent presidents (“the Great Communicator, ” Ronald Reagan; and “the Great Talker, ” Bill Clinton) conveyed in their Saturday morning radio addresses. Attention centers on two dimensions: activity and positivity. Clinton projected a more active anda more positive image than Reagan. On these dimensions, Reagan's use of language was closer to the American norm than Clinton's, although the differences between them were not truly fundamental. These findings help clarify why Reagan is generally considered the more effective communicator of the two and reinforce earlier indications of the “generic” character of presidential rhetoric.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.184 · 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