MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405057992 · doi:10.29173/writingacrossuofa74

Reading as a Writer: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

2024· article· en· W4405057992 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Valeriya Sytnik

Bibliographic record

VenueWriting across the University of Alberta · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRussian Literature and Bakhtin Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationIntuitionReading (process)Argument (complex analysis)Computer sciencePerceptionLinguisticsPsychologySociologyEpistemologyCognitive sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Written for WRS 102, Valeriya Sytnik’s reflective essay explores what it means to read like a writer. Valeriya argues for a three-part approach to learning to write from the texts that we read. She suggests that we balance our intuition and conscious knowledge about writing as we learn from the texts we read. This balancing act continues as we try to wrestle our ideasinto written form. At this stage of the writing process, we must negotiate the tension between our perceptions and reflections. Finally, Valeriya suggests that we must learn from example texts and practice what they teach us. This essay is an excellent example of using research sources to support a unique and compelling argument.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWriting across the University of AlbertaSame topicRussian Literature and Bakhtin StudiesFrench-language works237,207