MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225638590 · doi:10.1145/3512911

Situating Public Speaking: The Politics and Poetics of the Digital Islamic Sermons in Bangladesh

2022· article· en· W4225638590 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Mohammad Ruhul Amin, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIslamScholarshipPopularitySociologyPoliticsContext (archaeology)SituatedConceptualizationSkepticismComputer-supported cooperative workMedia studiesPublic relationsSocial sciencePolitical scienceEpistemologyHistoryLinguisticsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on public speaking has recently made fair progress within the CSCW scholarship that mostly focuses on training speakers to gain popularity. Core to this research is the idea of a universal set of skills that makes a public speech successful in terms of popularity. However, a strand of research has also shown skepticism to this simplistic conceptualization of the speaking context. We join this discussion by presenting a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses of Islamic preaching videos on YouTube. These videos are created from Islamic sermons -- a form of Islamic religious public speaking in Bangladesh. By exploring the topics of discussion by the preachers and by analyzing the performances of the preachers during the sermons, we demonstrate how those are situated in their social, political, and religious context. Based on our findings, we discuss how the public speaking scholarship of CSCW and related fields could benefit from studying such public speeches in non-secular contexts of the Global South. Further, we discuss how the role of such religious sermons could contribute to the development discourse within CSCW.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207