MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955857955 · doi:10.15826/icrt.2018.01.1.09

About eponyms in infocommunications and radio technologies terminology

2018· article· en· W2955857955 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInfocommunications and Radio Technologies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicForeign Language Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEponymTerminologyGlossaryHistoryQuarter (Canadian coin)Medical terminologyLinguisticsPhilosophyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eponimy problems in terminology of infocommunications and radio technologies are considered for the first time. Consideration of a linguistic aspect includes the analysis of 169 domestic publications in 27 directions of researches and allocation of medicine as a direction which concerns nearly half of all publications. It is supposed that the use of the term "eponym" became widely used by linguists in the last third or a quarter of the 20th century, as they adapted existing practices to assign personal names existing in medicine to a wide range of medical terms. Two types of dictionaries of the medical terms-eponyms differing in volume and structure are considered and analyzed. 64 eponyms-anthroponyms and one eponym-toponym are allocated from the standard programs of the speciality "Radio Engineering" (1984 version) as an example. The full name of the researcher, years of life, the country and disciplines using eponyms are established for eponyms-anthroponyms. It is established that the main "supplying countries" of eponyms-anthroponyms are the USA - 18, Great Britain - 11, France - 11, Germany - 10 and Russia - 6 eponyms. Drawn conclusions prove the need of continuation of researches in order to include: preparation of separate publications concerning forgotten or underexplored personalia, and preparation of the dictionary, which glossary has to correspond to modern programs of training of specialists. Results of such researches will promote formation of such competences as ability validly and delicately use historical heritage and ability to carry out the activity on the basis of complete system scientific outlook with use of knowledge in the field of history of science and equipment.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.328 · 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