«Come stiamo a lingua? … Risponde il linguista». La divulgazione del sapere linguistico nelle cronache linguistiche fra gli anni 1950 e il Duemila
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
This paper deals with the rhetoric of articles about language related topics published in Italian newspapers in a period of substantial changes in the field of the standard norm and the language use in the high and public discourse spheres. The sample of texts which serves as an empirical basis comes from language columns which provide critical, informative or instructive comments on the "correct or adequate" use of the Italian language, texts which were signed by specialists in the field of literature, philology and linguistics. We compare two language columns published in two of the most renowned national daily newspapers, La Stampa and La Repubblica, between the 1950s and the first decade of the 21st century. The aim of this comparison is to identify rhetorical strategies adopted by the authors to examine both the reflection on scientific paradigms which have been the subject of linguistic research on the popular discourse on language and the relevance of specific discourse traditions for the selection of these strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it