An Approach to Interface Terminology: The Example of Environmental Economics in English as a Foreign Language
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
Interface terminology will increasingly become a challenge for anyone working in disciplines that lie at the crossroads of several fields. Indeed, sciences continue to evolve, broaden their scope and, hence, borrow from one another. This study raises the problem of defining the boundaries of what constitutes an interface, and then studies the conditions for the selection of relevant terms. After reviewing some theoretical aspects of terminology science and calling for a more flexible approach, it examines some practical questions through the case of environmental economics. The target public-consisting of second-year French university students of economics-provides the opportunity to stress the need for the teacher to adapt the selection of interface terms to the situation. The conclusion, i.e. that there is no such thing as a ready-made stock of interface terms, could also be applied to translators, interpreters, terminologists and other potential users of such terminology.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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