MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626140905

O valor das definições para a organização conceptual da rolha de cortiça: uma questão de terminologia

2015· dissertation· pt· W2626140905 on OpenAlexaff
Margarida Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Linguistic Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A escolha do domínio recaiu sobre a cortiça, por tratar-se de uma área de interesse, tanto do ponto de vista científico, como tecnológico, ou ainda, cultural e económico. Embora visto como um ofício de tradição artesanal, actualmente, o sector da cortiça não só é um expoente nicho de trabalho em Portugal Continental, como é responsável pela produção de uma matéria-prima, que remete as exportações nacionais para posicionamentos estatísticos de liderança internacional. É objectivo desta investigação proceder à organização conceptual da rolha de cortiça e à terminologia que lhe está associada. Para tal, compilámos um corpus verbal e outro não verbal, sendo o primeiro tratado com recurso a ferramentas de tratamento semiautomático, o segundo foi tratado manualmente. No corpus verbal privilegiámos o tratamento da definição. Os resultados obtidos são amplamente debatidos tendo em conta sua utilidade para a construção dos mapas conceptuais em CmapTools apesar das suas limitações. As imagens foram associadas aos mapas para melhor ilustrar os conceitos. Paralelamente, é aflorado o fenómeno da elipse nos textos, que decorre do conhecimento implícito e de questões relacionadas com a economia do discurso.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.259 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)Same topiclinguistics and terminology studiesFrench-language works237,207