MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Contrastive Study of Brand Names in English and Chinese

2013· article· en· W1955357040 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiang Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvertisingBrand namesSymbol (formal)TransliterationBrand managementBusinessBrand extensionMarketingTrademarkLinguisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A brand is shown by a name, a word, a sign, a symbol, a design or a combination of them. It is intended to identify the products or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors. For the good brand has the functions of distinguishing, providing information of products and being symbol of credit , the good brand has a good advertisement for the product and help to take in a larger market . Most brand names in Chinese are in the form of Chinese characters or Pinyin. In the West sense of individuality is very prevailing. What’s more, the companies usually belong to individuals, thus the personal names or surnames are used in brand names. On the contrary, Confucianism is the main stream in traditional Chinese culture which underlines hospitality and harmony, and belittles individualism. It is very important to select a brand name in the present-day brand competitive world. Several skills are employed in translating brand names. Among them are transliteration, paraphrase and complementary translation. The translation is deemed a success as long as it can provoke the consumers’ good association and their desires for purchasing the products.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207