MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414765700 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v16n2p72

Discursive Strategies in Imran Khan’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly: Ideological Square Model Perspective

2025· article· en· W4414765700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhammad Mooneeb Ali, Mahwish Farooq, Muhammad A. Saeed, Yasir Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyPerspective (graphical)Session (web analytics)Discourse analysisSquare (algebra)The Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical discourse analysis unearths the ideologies, beliefs, and principles embedded in spoken and written discourse. Imran Khan’s addresses to national and international forums gained the attention of the discourse analysts. The current study explored the discursive strategies used by ex-prime minister of Pakistan in his address to the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The present study utilized a mixed-method research design by employing Van Dijk’s Ideological Square Model analytical framework. The data of the study and the transcribed text of the speech were gleaned through internet sources. The text of the speech was analyzed through the content analysis approach. Furthermore, the quantitative section looked at the frequency of the discusrive strategies like description of actor burden, and authority all presented through frequency tables and percentages. The findings revealed that actor description (42%), authority (27%), and burden (18%) were the most frequently employed strategies, indicating Khan’s deliberate use of persuasive devices to reinforce ideological positioning at both textual and socio-cognitive levels. These strategies helped enhance the persuasiveness of his speech.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207