MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394843815 · doi:10.4000/aad.8119

Michael A. Gilbert: Not arguing logically is not illogical: Other ways of communicating arguments

2024· article· en· W4394843815 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael A. Gilbert, Linda Carozza

Bibliographic record

VenueArgumentation et analyse du discours · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Michael A. Gilbert has contributed significantly to the field of contemporary Argumentation Theory. Most notable are his multi-modal theory of argumentation and coalescent argumentation, models of argument that he developed to address how interlocutors actually argue in the marketplace. His ideas were not always understood, appreciated, or acknowledged by the larger argumentation community. Recently, though, the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric (in Ontario, Canada) recognized Gilbert’s contributions in a week-long Institute dedicated to his scholarship. Provoking as his theories might seem, rhetorical scholars can find some common ground with Gilbert’s works.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArgumentation et analyse du discoursSame topicEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsFrench-language works237,207