MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913093488 · doi:10.3968/10671

On the Integration of Anglicisms Into Present-Day Georgian

2018· article· en· W2913093488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Natia Davitishvili

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorgianLingua francaPoliticsIndependence (probability theory)Political scienceLoanDemocratizationLinguisticsEconomic historyHistoryLawEconomicsDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper aims to consider the flow of English loan words into present-day Georgian for the last twenty-five years after the country gained its independence as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Georgia ( Sakartvelo − in the Georgian language) is a small picturesque country with ancient culture located at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Western Asia in the Caucasus region of Eurasia. The change of the country’s political orientation, as well as the democratisation of the society and its aspiration towards NATO and EU integration, have replaced the use of the Russian language by English due to the growth of American influence as well as the prestigious role of English as a lingua franca in almost every aspect of life at a global level. Therefore, in the present paper the term anglicism is used in its wide sense referring to English loans originating both from England and the USA. The research has shown that, like many European languages, present-day Georgian distinguishes three main groups of anglicisms that are differentiated from each other on the basis of the linguistic strategies of their borrowing: lexical, transliterated and semantic borrowings. The increasing flow of English words into Georgian confirms that the country and its people respond to the changing needs of communication, following changes in the world and ways of living in general.

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)0.002
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207