MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619343318 · doi:10.3968/9579

Latin Loan Words in the Italian Language and Their Functions

2017· article· en· W2619343318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhang Hai-hong

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeologismLoanLinguisticsRelation (database)Order (exchange)Lingua francaHistoryComputer sciencePhilosophyEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Italian language is derived from Vulgar Latin. Borrowing words from another language is an important way for the development of a language. Since its emergence, the Italian language has been picking up neologisms from other languages. The Latin loan words in the Italian language can be analyzed from three different aspects – the time when they are borrowed, the fields they are involved in and the part of speech they belong to – in order to delve into the relation between the two languages and the influence that Latin imposed on Italian.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLinguistic Studies and Language AcquisitionFrench-language works237,207