Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhetoric has acquired a bad reputation in the modern age. Many hear the word in contemporary news and discourse and ideologically wince. It has gone from a neutral term to one that connotes deception and ill-intent. Rhetoric has also unfairly become synonymous with the Right-wing. In the following piece, I will argue that not only must rhetoric be stripped of its pejorative connotations, but that the spice and flair the Right unapologetically utilize must be wielded by the Left, with ethical moderations, of course. This piece will show how, by abandoning the pointless and outdated notions of impartiality and decorum, the Left can be more effective communicators and finally be on a level playing field with the Right. This paper was written as part of a course on Modern and Classical Rhetoric.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.016 |
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".