MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959530590 · doi:10.1080/1835859032000101043

What Does Rhetorical Theory Do? And Is That A Stupid Question?

2003· article· en· W6959530590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLeaf Properties and Growth Measurement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101EmperipolesisDysgeusiaDemotionDurvalumabDiafiltrationLiquation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports on the 2002 National Communication pre-conference seminar. As part of the continuing dialogue among rhetoricians about the current state of rhetorical theory, the pre-conference seminar series offered an opportunity for rhetoric scholars to consider the functions served by rhetorical theory. The seminar opened with framing comments from co-leaders, followed by brief presentations from four featured speakers. These were followed by small group sessions in which participants explored the themes developed in their position papers.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.043
Scholarly communication0.0180.044
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSound Ideas (University of Puget Sound)Same topicLeaf Properties and Growth MeasurementFrench-language works237,207