Joining the Dialogue: Practices for Ethical Research Writing. Bettina Stumm. Broadview Press, 2021
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
They Say / I Say in the way that it views research writing as a dialogue. The book focuses on writing as a process and the ethical aspects of composition and is divided into four main parts, (a) "Approaching Academic Dialogue", (b) "Developing Skills of Reception", (c) "Developing Skills of Response", and (d) "Participating in Academic Dialogue". The first part deals with the rhetorical situation of research writing, the second addresses writing as a conversation, the third focuses on stance and perspective, and the final part describes the writing process itself. While Stumm's book is similar to Giltrow's and Graff and Birkenstein's, there are notable differences. While Giltrow's book is often used as a textbook for upper division composition classes because of its advanced-level readings, They Say / I Say emphasizes templates and helps students to find their voice, making it a popular textbook for first-year English and writing courses. Stumm's book is a mix of these two books and is marketed as a central textbook for a composition course.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it