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
The system of address terms is an indispensible part of human communication. Social address terms are subordinates of all the address terms humans have. They are used to denote people other than family members. Compared with kinship terms, the usage of social address terms is much more complex and flexible. First, the actual choices of social address terms are determined by the complex social relationship and social roles rather than blood relationship. Besides, the social address terms are unstable and subject to change. As the social structure and cultural values change, social address terms that denote interpersonal relationship will change accordingly. As a result of these features, social address terms are more likely to cause problems in communication because a person has no definite address terms in a society. Chinese and English social address terms bear great differences due to the huge cultural differences. In this paper, a comparison of Chinese and English social address terms is made and the cultural differences behind them discussed. It is hoped that the paper is of some help to cross-cultural communication and those who concern with the investigation of address terms.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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