MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012200549 · doi:10.22364/liclip.2016.01

Dictionary making and quality education

2016· article· en· W3012200549 on OpenAlexaff
Piotr Nagórka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexicographyComputer scienceProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Control (management)Knowledge managementLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dictionaries have played a defined role in assisting educational processes in specialist fields.Their didactic functions may include those of summarizing accumulated knowledge, assistance in knowledge organization and control over newly formed information.The article focuses on educational aspects that term specialists and lexicographers either take into account or may want to consider when creating dictionaries dedicated to specialist communities.The dictionary maker may program didactic functions in each of the creation stages: conceptual, semantic, and aesthetic.Novelties may come from linguistics and from related disciplines.When considering didactic functions throughout the dictionary making process, specialist lexicographers may create much more effective language instruments.These tools may facilitate field communication while answering educational needs in specialist communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.018
Scholarly communication0.0190.016
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207