MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037157438 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n5p60

Basic Factors Motivating the Extension of Word Meaning

2020· article· en· W3037157438 on OpenAlex
Aytaj Sadiq Hasanova

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural, Linguistic, Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolysemyLinguisticsNominative caseMeaning (existential)Cognitive linguisticsSemantics (computer science)CognitionRealization (probability)Semantic changePsychologyPhenomenonExtension (predicate logic)Interpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceVerbEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was conducted to investigate the psycholinguistic bases and realization mechanism of semantic changes. Semantic extension that occurs in words comprehended in original nominative meaning has many times been the objective of linguistic investigations. As modern linguistics focuses more and more on the relationship of language and cognition, language and psychology, linguistic analyses and studies of word semantics are also directed to cognitive and thinking processes. The article aims to scrutinize main factors that bring about semantic changes. The semantic structure of a word undergoes multilateral changes throughout the historical development of language. Most words in language may assume additional meanings in functional speech that are not fixed in their lexicographic definitions. These peripheral or potential semantic components of meaning are realized in the thoughts of people in certain contexts. One of the reasons bringing about polysemy is explained by generalizing character of human thinking. The current study explains the approaches of both traditional and cognitive linguistics towards the above-mentioned linguistic phenomenon. The article also provides the interpretation of semantic development on the basis of the element of reality—the minimum unit that is comprehended, introduced in the theory of Linguo-Psychological Unity (LPU) newly created in Azerbaijani linguistics.

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)0.418
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.418
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.252 · 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