The Commentary of City Promotional Films Based on Transitivity Theory: A Case Study of Xi’an and San Francisco
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on Halliday’s theory of ideational function, this paper selects the commentary of city promotional films of Xi’an and San Francisco and analyzes them from the perspective of the transitivity system. The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the language skills of the two commentaries and to provide ideas and methods for the audience to understand such explanatory texts. This paper focuses on the following two questions: 1) How do the six processes of the transitivity system distribute in the two commentaries? 2) What are the specific functions of the six processes in the two commentaries? The results show that 1) there are two kinds of processes frequently used in explanatory texts, namely material process and relational process; 2) the frequency of mental, verbal and existential processes is relatively low; 3) behavioral process has no occurrence. The reason may be that although the textual structure and description focus of the two commentaries are different, they both belong to the applied style of oral explanation, so that they share the same social functions of shaping the city image, highlighting the city connotation and managing the city brand.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".