Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, there have been series of arguments cum controversies regarding what actually constitutes meaning in language. In several attempts to resolve these controversies, different semanticists and philosophers of language alike have taken giant steps towards developing different theories that would properly, in their own view, give a lucid account of meaning. In turn, these theories have also generated more challenging controversies. Along this theoretical trajectory, this paper therefore attempts a critical appraisal of some of the existing theories of meaning with the aim of bringing to the fore the cardinal tenets around which each of them revolves. In addition, the paper tries as much as possible to make some incursion into the historical background of these theories as well as identifying some of their strengths and weaknesses where necessary. The appraisal exercise is done in this work therefore necessitates a proposal of a new theory known as “Existential theory of meaning”, as a response to the theoretical concerns of beclouding how the concept ‘meaning’ should be analyzed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".