Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to clarify the pragmatic functions of the phenomenon “Sexual Inversion” in the use of gender terms in Japanese conversation, this paper analyses respectively the pragmatic functions of the male using female terms and the female using male terms through conversational examples, presenting the point that there is compatibility between male and female terms, the use of which is not confined to gender identity of the speaker, and the flexible use of which can better express the speaker’s identity and viewpoint, moderate the talking atmosphere and coordinate relationship between the two talking sides. It is an intentional pragmatic strategy. Key words: male terms; female terms; pragmatic functions Resume: Afin de clarifier les fonctions pragmatiques du phenomene de l’inversion sexuelle dans l'utilisation des termes de genre dans la conversation en japonais, ce document analyse respectivement les fonctions pragmatiques des termes feminins utilises par les hommes et des termes masculins utilises par les femmes en nous donnant des exemples de conversation, et en presentant le point de vue qu'il y a une compatibilite entre les termes masculins et les termes feminins, dont l'utilisation ne se limite pas a l'identite sexuelle de l'orateur, et qu’une utilisation souple peut mieux exprimer l'identite et le point de vue du locuteur, moderer l'atmosphere de conversation et coordonner les relations entre les deux locuteurs. Il s'agit d'une strategie pragmatique intentionnelle. Mots-Cles: termes masculins; termes feminins; fonctions pragmatiques
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".