MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386050417 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n7p497

Discursive Strategies Utilized in King Abdullah II's Speeches during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Addressing the Nation

2023· article· en· W4386050417 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zakaryia Almahasees, Mouad Mohammed Al­-Natour

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMiddle East and Rwanda Conflicts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Presidential systemPandemicNominationGovernment (linguistics)Political science2019-20 coronavirus outbreakArgumentation theoryMajestyMedia studiesSociologyPoliticsLinguisticsLawMedicinePhilosophyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While several researchers have investigated the linguistic features of Presidential and Royal speeches, there is a gap in the literature regarding discursive strategies used in the speeches of Presidents and Monarchs during crises. The study aims at identifying the main discursive strategies used by His Majesty King Abdullah II in addressing Jordanians during COVID-19. Therefore, the study adopted the Positive Discourse Analysis approach (PDA) to investigate the usage of discursive strategies in three speeches of King Abdullah II during COVID-19. The study revealed that the King used nomination, prediction, argumentation, perspectivization and intensification, and mitigation strategies in appeasing Jordanians and conveying his directives to the government regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicMiddle East and Rwanda ConflictsFrench-language works237,207