On the Problems Arising during the Transformation of the English Verbal Phraseological Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of globalization, covering various spheres of life, is universal, as for thousands of years separated, remote to some extent, differential events—national or regional peculiarities, habits, complexes strongly influenced by modern technologies, approaching each other with incredible speed and combine as a result of multifaceted economic, socio-political, moral and ideological ties, limiting the kind of peculiarities, lead to the events and processes happening in the world. Today a rapid growth of the prestige of the English language is observed in the modern world, as well as in Azerbaijan and this can be explained by, at least, two reasons. The first: there exists a necessity for a universal means of communication, a common language for the whole mankind. The second: the advantages of the English language in comparison with other international languages in gratifying this need. It is not a secret that in our days the English language is one of the most important languages in the process of intercultural communication. We may say that English is a Global Language today as from the geographical point of view it is spread throughout the world among the territories of three big oceans: the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and from the social-cultural point of view almost all the population of the Earth use this language in different purposes. The article represented to your attention is devoted to the problems arising during the transformation of the English verbal phraseological units. In this investigation different linguistic methods such as descriptive, transformational, comparative-typological were used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".