MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173555884

The Easiest Common Language in the Cosmos and a Manifesto of the Human Common Language

2012· article· en· W3173555884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zheng Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCognitive Science and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman languageManifestoComputer scienceLinguisticsSociology of languageUniversal Networking LanguageCommon senseComprehension approachLanguage technologySociologyCognitive scienceNatural languageArtificial intelligencePsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author of this essay has first probed into the human beings’ necessity for the common language, and has expounded on the easiest common language existing everywhere in the cosmos and running through all “dead” & living things, and then has listed its very-widely-used and never-exhausted applications. Based on his many years’ researches and experiments, the author has pointed out that the universal language exists in the human brain and the human languages, expecting to solve the long-suspending and unsettled technical problems in the language researching and teaching. The essay has sketched a prospect of the human common language, and one practical and scientific route – adopting the universal language and the human brains’ laws and the excellences of the-most-widely-used language can bring about the formation of the human common language, and finally called on every nation and every earthman to do a bit for the formation. Key words: Cosmic common language; Brain and sound language; Laws; Human common language

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in literature and languageSame topicCognitive Science and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207