Plain Language and Ethical Action: A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the Twenty-First Century
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plain Language and Ethical Action examines and evaluates principles and practices of plain language that technical content producers can apply to meet their audiences' needs in an ethical way. Applying the BUROC framework (Bureaucratic, Unfamiliar, Rights-Oriented, and Critical) to identify situations in which audiences will benefit from plain language, this work offers in-depth profiles to show how six organizations produce effective plain-language content. The profiles show plain-language projects done by organizations ranging from grassroots volunteers on a shoe-string budget to small nonprofits to consultants completing significant federal contacts. End-of-chapter questions and exercises provide tools for students and practitioners to reflect on and apply insights from the book. Reflecting global commitments to plain language, this volume includes a case study of a European group based in Sweden along with results from interviews with plain-language experts around the world, including Canada, England, South Africa, Portugal, Australia, and New Zealand. This work is intended for use in courses in information design, technical and professional communication, health communication, and other areas producing plain-language communication. It is also a crucial resource for practitioners developing plain-language technical content and content strategists in a variety of fields, including health literacy, technical communication, and information design.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it