MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004130208 · doi:10.3968/11433

Analysis of Fans’ Cyberwords From the Perspective of Memetics

2019· article· en· W3004130208 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Liuxiang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueCross-cultural communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemeticsPerspective (graphical)The InternetSociologyPoint (geometry)LinguisticsPsychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of internet, network is more and more important in people’s daily life. Among the huge network user groups, fans as a unique group gradually come to people’s vision, meanwhile cyberwords used by fans group also becomes one of the research topics of scholars. As far as memetics is concerned, language itself is a kind of meme, and memes also reside in language. From this point, linguistic memes are widely spread among fans group. In this paper, five types of fans’ cyberwords and their functions are analyzed from the perspective of memetics, and specific phenomena which influence the generation and spread of linguistic memes are also explored.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCross-cultural communicationSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207