Ortho-Stylistic Colorings of Technological Mediated Communication (TMC) Forms; With Reference to Instant Messaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This time which is called the information time or the knowledge society, we daily encounter the invention of new types and styles of communications such as computers which become essentially present in our everyday life, and are now available at homes and in offices worldwide. Computer, with its two main shapes (desktops and laptops), has different types such as; PDAs, mobile phones, Blackberries, etc.; and different media like the internet, emails, chat, text messaging and others. We can expect that new ones will be invented. All these types and styles of communication gadgets lead to coining new terms and concepts that can potentially have different interpretations from context to context. These different types and styles of information and communication technologies impact the way people communicate and use language. They also have an impact on the way they read, write, and process information. This lead the Arab internet users like other people worldwide to use new/deviant orthographic forms of language for communication which become the bone of contention among Arab scholars. This paper studies the orthographic and linguistic colorings of instant messages (IM) used by the Saudi and Qatari students. I intend to study this form/register of language linguistically to achieve the following goals; 1) What are the stylistic coloring and orthographic features of this new Arabic forms used in IM communication. 2) The possibilities of applying IM written form on other registers for communication. 3) The controversial views of the Arab scholars about the negative and positive impacts of using this form of a language on standard Arabic.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".