Retórica e interdisciplinariedad: una conversación con Christopher Tindale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En esta entrevista, nos sumergimos en la carrera del profesor Christopher Tindale, empezando por sus años como estudiante de doctorado, pasando por su trabajo en la Universidad de Trent, hasta su invitación a unirse al Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (Centro de Investigación en Razonamiento, Argumentación y Retórica, CRRAR) de la Universidad de Windsor, donde trabaja actualmente. Hablamos de su experiencia en el CRRAR y de su interacción con otros importantes especialistas en argumentación, así como del rol que el Centro desempeña hoy en la formación de investigadores en argumentación. Sin embargo, nuestro énfasis recae en el trabajo del profesor Tindale sobre la teoría de la argumentación. Discutimos la historia y la concepción de algunos de sus libros, junto con algunas de las ideas más importantes desarrolladas en ellos.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".