Kock, Christian and Marcus Lantz (eds). 2023. Rhetorical Argumentation: The Copenhagen School (Windsor Ontario: Windsor Studies in Argumentation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les concepts de rhtorique et d' argumentation ont fait l'objet d'un dbat permanent au fil des ans.Les frontires floues qui les sparent remontent aux discussions anciennes sur la rhtorique et la dialectique et s'tendent aux dbats du 20e sicle sur les frontires disciplinaires. l'heure du tournant informationnel, de la vague mondiale de populisme et de la prdominance de la pense critique dans les universits (sans doute une expression la mode), diffrentes approches de la comprhension de l'argumentation suscitent l'intrt des chercheurs dans divers domaines.La rcente anthologie Rhetorical Argumentation : The Copenhagen School (CS), dite par Christian Kock et Marcus Lantz, introduit une nouvelle perspective pertinente dans cette discussion de longue date.Bien que tous les contributeurs de la collection aient des liens avec l'Universit de Copenhague un moment ou un autre, les coditeurs prcisent que leur lien n'est pas principalement bas sur la situation gographique ou l'affiliation institutionnelle.C'est plutt leur orientation collective,
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".