MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970524181 · doi:10.1353/lan.2002.0127

<b>Modern lexicography:</b> An introduction. By Henri Béjoint. Oxford &amp; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xii, 276.

2002· article· en· W1970524181 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexicographyLinguisticsSubject (documents)HistoryFocus (optics)Computer scienceLibrary sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Modern lexicography: An introduction by Henri Béjoint Zdenek Salzmann Modern lexicography: An introduction. By Henri Béjoint. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. xii, 276. This is a paperback edition of Tradition and innovation in modern English dictionaries published in 1994. In this edition a few minor corrections have been made, and the bibliography has been updated. The book focuses on the decades since the 1960s and is limited to the lexicographies of English-speaking countries. Béjoint is Professor in the Département de Langues Etrangères Appliquées at the University of Lyon. Metalexicography—‘the activities of anyone who writes about lexicography but does not write dictionaries’ (8)—is his specialty. The book is divided into seven chapters. In Ch. 1, ‘Dictionaries and the dictionary’ (6–41), B defines the term ‘dictionary’ and discusses the structure and functions of dictionaries. He then describes their various types: morphological, functional, ‘genetic’, general, specialized, monolingual, bilingual, encyclopedic, and others. The lexicographic scene in English-speaking countries is the subject of Ch. 2 (42–91). It contains a brief but informative survey of dictionaries published in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere. Production of dictionaries designed to facilitate encoding—i.e. dictionaries of synonyms or of semantically related words—is a recent trend in English-language lexicography. Other innovations are semantic dictionaries, monolingual-bilingual dictionaries for foreign students, dictionaries of new words, and dictionaries of World English. Despite B’s intent to focus on English lexicography of recent decades, he devotes a short chapter (Ch. 3) to the historical origins of the general purpose dictionary, mentioning Sumerian lists dating back to the third millennium bc as the earliest ancestors of modern dictionaries. Of interest to the reader may be an account of the evolution of general purpose dictionaries over the last several centuries. What are dictionaries for? Functions of the general purpose dictionary are listed in Ch. 4, but the answer is far from straightforward. For example, should dictionaries be prescriptive or descriptive? The reader is reminded of the vigorous debate concerning the editorial policy used in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961). ‘What are general-purpose dictionaries really for?’ is the title and subject of Ch. 5 (140–68). The answer depends on the needs and skills of dictionary users. B lists over 30 studies made since 1962 and discusses several in some detail. This chapter will prove helpful to dictionary authors and editors. Ch. 6, ‘The linguistic traditions of lexicography’ (169–208), would be of particular interest to the readers of Language. In it B discusses the participation [End Page 391] of linguists in American lexicographic projects (‘not entirely unproblematic’), the relationship between dictionaries and linguistic schools, and the various methods of selecting entries and defining words. According to B, ‘the analytic definition is always best’ (198). ‘Whither lexicography’, Ch. 7 (209–37), contains a survey of some of the most promising research in theoretical linguistics that could improve dictionaries compiled in the future. A bibliography and an index conclude the volume. Zdenek Salzmann Northern Arizona University Copyright © 2002 Linguistic Society of America

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.181 · 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