Retórica e interdisciplinaridade: uma conversa com Christopher Tindale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nesta entrevista, mergulhamos na carreira do Professor Christopher Tindale, desde os seus anos de doutorado, passando pelo seu trabalho na Universidade de Trent, até seu convite para se juntar ao Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR) da Universidade de Windsor, onde trabalha atualmente. Falamos sobre sua experiência no CRARR e da sua interação com outros importantes estudiosos da argumentação, bem como sobre o papel que o Centro desempenha atualmente na formação de pesquisadores em argumentação. O nosso foco, no entanto, é o trabalho do Professor Tindale sobre a teoria da argumentação. Discutimos a história e a concepção de alguns de seus livros, assim como algumas das ideias mais importantes desenvolvidas neles. Nesse processo, os leitores conhecerão a perspectiva de Tindale sobre Retórica, auditório, falácia, pensamento crítico e antropologia da argumentação.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".