Knowledge and Linguistic Creativity Interaction in the Media Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem of linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world correlation as applied to linguistic creativity is closely connected with the creative potential of language. Linguistic creativity manifests itself at various levels of linguistic expression and finds its representation in the sphere of meaning transformations. Linguistic meaning can also be regarded as a cultural information container and knowledge of the world carrier, which is particularly important in terms of linguistic and conceptual meaning correlation, which concerns with understanding and interpretation, as well as the process of world view formation. Linguistic creativity can be regarded primarily as the activity of creating new meaning in order to produce a certain stylistic or rhetorical effect to achieve communicative pragmatic purpose in the course of information transfer. The Mass Media discourse presented by the written media texts is characterized by the process of interrelation of the informative function of language with the functions of impact and persuasion, and deals with purposeful cognitive activities that include attitudes, motives, evaluations, etc. It is considered to be the area of the target audience political and ideological preferences manipulation, that comprises various linguistic phenomena, characterized by the ability to express evaluative and persuasive meanings. Sobriquet nominations used in the Media discourse play an important role in the process of evaluation and world view formation, as it reflects the peculiar characteristics of the object of nomination, significant for the linguocultural community in question in a certain period of time.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".