Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to provide an initial analysis of the semantic relations holding between Anglo-Saxon and Latinate synonyms in present-day English. It is an acknowledged fact that the lexicon of English consists of a basic indigenous vocabulary of Germanic origin with many foreign borrowings especially from French, Latin and Greek. This has produced an etymologically diverse word-stock characterized by distinct features. Near-synonymous words with a different etymology can be a source of confusion and dictionaries often fail to clearly distinguish between them. Pairs of Anglo-Saxon vs. Latinate words, such as speed/velocity, sweat/perspire, lunatic/insane, etc., are often said to be equivalent in meaning, with differences only in terms of style and register. The scenario, however, is more subtle, complex and interesting than this. A finer-grained analysis of speed and velocity, for instance, shows, on the one hand, that there is a high degree of interchangeability between the two words. On the other hand, though, the semantics of speed is more generic, neutral and broader in scope, while velocity expresses specific and restricted meanings. In addition to this generic-specific relation between the two words, velocity appears to undergo metaphoric extension.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".