A Cognitive Approach to the Semantics in the Sacred Context: Semantic and Symbolic Function of Sacred Words
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
One of the intriguing features of language interaction with society and culture is the position of certain words as sacred within that society. Thus, it is important to analyze the social process through which sacred words present their particular features. In this paper, we show how sacred words gain their symbolic prominence. Furthermore, we propose a cognitive-semantic model based on the hypothesis of historic automaticity chain that explains well the reason behind the loss of semantics of the sacred words. In this paper, we compare some sacred words across many Indo-European languages and analyze how the very same sacred words lost ground to other words and became almost empty of semantics and word origin, while still preserving the symbolic notion. This study brings the notion of abstraction to the sacred word framework and clarifies the ways the mind processes sacred semantics. In order to support our hypothesis, we performed two small-scale psycho-linguistic experiments and the results confirmed our hypothesis.
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 | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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