Peircean Index in the Naming Process: Nouns, Pronouns and Proper Names
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This analysis identifies semiotic differences between pronouns, proper names and count and mass nouns. It showcases the work of Peirce’s Index in the process of individuation, capitalizing upon the ontological and epistemological effects of employing pronouns (particularly demonstratives) as individuals, as opposed to their use as singulars. Peirce’s individual versus singular distinction highlights the contrast between unique separateness, on the one hand, and similarity among entities (i.e., object classification) on the other. The argument is likewise made that while pronouns are often used as individuals, nouns and most proper names have a singular function. Rationale supports the fact that this difference results from the prominence of Peirce’s Dynamical Object in the work of embodied schemas which underlie and permeate new experiences. Dynamical Objects of demonstrative pronouns ground the triad, while Interpretants ground triads for nouns and proper names.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it