MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169551614

Codificació del microcorpus en la recuperació de l'hebreu

2003· article· ca· W2169551614 on OpenAlexaff
Moshe Nahir

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageca
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En aquest article, l'autor analitza la tasca de codificacio lexica duta a terme en el periode de de l'hebreu modern. Es pot considerar que la de l'hebreu modern compren tres periodes, en cada un dels quals s'ha intentat aconseguir com a minim un objectiu de planificacio linguistica. El primer d'aquests periodes es el de la recuperacio linguistica (1890-1914), en el qual va tenir lloc la d'aquesta llengua a Palestina. Al comencament d'aquesta recuperacio, el lexic hebreu era tan inadequat per a la vida moderna ?ja que hi mancaven paraules per a conceptes com tomaquet, serios i diari? que alguns dirigents van posar en dubte la capacitat de de la llengua. Per tant, calia dur a terme una planificacio del corpus per a emplenar aquest gran buit lexic. Aquest aspecte de la es va assolir gracies als esforcos conjunts d'educadors, escriptors, traductors, etc., com tambe d'innombrables individus amb consciencia linguistica. Es va dur a terme de diverses maneres: recuperant paraules i arrels antigues, creant noves paraules a partir d'arrels i termes antics, combinant paraules existents, completant models amb complements d'arrel, amb prestecs de paraules i arrels, etc. Tota aquesta campanya laboriosa i aparentment interminable va donar resultat, i actualment l'hebreu es una llengua moderna, estandarditzada i normalitzada en tots els aspectes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207