MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

L'argumentation dans les débats télévisés entre candidats à la présidence américaine : l'appel aux émotions comme tactique de persuasion

2008· book-chapter· fr· W4250507149 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Marie Gingras

Bibliographic record

VenueCNRS Éditions eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les fallacies dans le discours politique Les débats télévisés entre candidats à la présidence américaine constituent des moments de grande fébrilité lors des campagnes électorales ; ils attirent une audience dont la majorité se tournera exceptionnellement vers une émission à caractère politique, et les médias font de ces rencontres le spectacle politique par excellence en entretenant l'intérêt et même le suspense sur leur moment et leurs modalités ainsi qu'en rappelant les moments haut en cou...

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.303
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 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNRS Éditions eBooksSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207