Joining the Dialogue: Practices for Ethical Research Writing. Bettina Stumm. Broadview Press, 2021
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.018 |
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".