MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213254138 · doi:10.31468/dwr.899

Reinventing (with) Theory in Rhetoric and Writing Studies: Essays in Honor of Sharon Crowley. Andrea Alden, Kendall Gerdes, Judy Holiday, & Ryan Skinnell (Eds.). Utah State University Press, 2019

2022· article· en· W4213254138 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dana Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorHistoryArt historyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This collection of essays in honour of Sharon Crowley is a compelling model and a useful tool for a critical and inclusive Writing Studies.Commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion means understanding, confronting, and redressing our normative privilege; it means standing up, saying it like it is, offering something new, and persisting in our critiques.Sharon Crowley, this collection confirms, was one such rebel with a cause.She fought for socially-just writing instruction for college and university students in America, which was inextricable from her advocacy for visibility and equity for the disciplines and people of composition, rhetoric, and writing studies.Crowley's concept of theory as rhetorical invention unites this provocative, moving collection of essays edited by four graduate students who celebrate her "reputation in the field as a 'consistent contrarian'" (p.5).It is important to note that they also say that she would not necessarily have seen herself that way.Most of us would agree, nonetheless, that the world looks different once you have been Crowlied.My favourite line of the introduction is as follows: "this book moves in some unexpected-maybe even uncomfortable-directions.Bearing in mind the goals at hand, we consider that one of its chief merits" (p.7).This book shakes things up; it disrupts white privilege.It is also a survival manual for hope.The collection of essays embodies Crowley's theory of rhetorical invention as the simultaneous re-inscription and disruption of power by showing how rhetorical invention plays out in contexts of race and privilege.The authors of the 18 chapters that apply Crowley's theory to contexts demand that we see and act in new ways, use new language to counter racism.A thread endemic to our field and to Crowley's work is the offering of new language to anti-theoretical positions often espoused in

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscourse and Writing/RédactologieSame topicRhetoric and Communication StudiesFrench-language works237,207