Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on dictionary use is a relatively new field in lexicography. Among them, the empirical studies which were few before 1990s has gained ground over recent three decades. Using data of 35 articles from International Journal of Lexicography (1987–2017), this study renders an analysis of the empirical research trends in the field of dictionary use. The analysis mainly focuses on the research topics, research methodology, and the changes that have occurred in the field. The results show that while some hot topics (e.g., the effectiveness of dictionary use or of certain dictionary information) have remained popular over the past two decades, some topics, e.g., the exploration of dictionary using process have received an increasing attention, but some others, e.g., the investigation on habits and needs of dictionary use, have witnessed a decrease of interest recently. Furthermore, researchers have improved the methodological standards for recent studies. As for data analysis, more complicated statistic approaches, rather than pure descriptive statistics, have been adopted. Finally, based on the analysis on previous studies, this paper offers suggestions for further research trend.
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".