MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W20118474 · doi:10.15173/mjc.v1i0.221

The Linguistic Relativity Theory and Benjamin Lee Whorf

2004· article· en· W20118474 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christina McAfee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe McMaster Journal of Communication · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCategorization, perception, and language
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguistic relativityLinguisticsTheory of relativityPhilosophyEpistemologyTheoretical physicsPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using sources, which address various theories of Linguistic Relativity - Rossi-Landi (1973), Penn (1972), Miller (1968), and Rollins (1980) – the unique aspects of these theories are explained. The intent of the paper is to expose Benjamin Lee Whorf not as the soul progenitor of the theory (that language culture and thought are interrelated), but as a reviser of centuries of scholarship. The theories of Hamann, Herder, Humboldt, Boas, and Sapir are examined and conclusions are made on their influences on and differences from the Whorfian Hypothesis.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe McMaster Journal of CommunicationSame topicCategorization, perception, and languageFrench-language works237,207