Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language is a mirror of society. The address of couples means the vocative way of the couples, and is part of language which belongs to culture that is part of society. The address system in China, including the vocatives between husband and wife, reflects the changes and the characteristics of the society. The address of couples not only indicates the status of women in both the family and the society, but also embodies the changes and the development of the society. That is power and solidarity on the one hand, social differences, social changes and individuality on the other hand. Key words: power and solidarity, vocative, individuality Resume: La langue est un miroir . L’appellation conjugale est la facon de s’appeler entre les epoux . Elle fait partie du systeme linguistique . Et etant une partie de la culture , la langue appartient au domaine social . Le systeme d’appellation , y compris bien sur l’appellation conjugale , reflete de facon profonde , les cacacteristiques et les evolutions de la societe chinoise . L’appellation conjugale , d’une part , reflete la statut social des femmes dans la famille et la societe , d’autre part , temoigne aussi le changement et l’evolution de la societe , c’est a dire , l’appellation traduit non seulement la relation etroite , la puissance et l’influence , mais aussi le changement des nuances sociales et la caracteristique individuelle . Mots cles: puissance et solidarite , vocatif , individualite 摘要：語言是一面鏡子；配偶稱謂是指夫妻間的稱呼方式，屬於語言系統範疇；語言又是文化的一部分，屬於社會範疇。我國的稱謂系統，當然包括夫妻稱謂，深刻的反映出中國社會的特徵與變化。夫妻稱謂一方面反映出婦女在家庭和社會中的地位，另一方面還體現了社會的發展與變化；即夫妻稱謂既體現權勢和親密關係，同時反映社會差異變化和個性化特徵。 關鍵詞：權勢與親密關係；稱謂；個性化
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".