MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076475960 · doi:10.1075/jlp.13.2.07jak

Denotational boundary disputes in political discourse

2014· article· en· W2076475960 on OpenAlex
Olaf Jäkel

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

VenueJournal of Language and Politics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanField (mathematics)Focus (optics)PoliticsContext (archaeology)LinguisticsSociologyEpistemologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cognitive semantic analysis of denotational incongruencies by means of comparative investigations of structural field patterns (cf. Jäkel 2001 , 2003 , 2010 ) can also be put to use in the investigation of certain kinds of contested concepts ( Lakoff 1993 ), namely cases in which the field patterns themselves are under dispute. The case to be analysed is that of marriage , a cultural concept that has recently come under dispute in the socio-political discourse of Western countries. Competing cultural models (cf. Lakoff 1987 ) to be compared in this context include the traditional/conservative model as well as different versions of a more tolerant model and a liberal/progressive model. The analysis will focus on authentic language data from the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and Germany, supplemented by a diachronic comparison of dictionary definitions as well as the results of a survey done with young German informants.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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