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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The editors’ target is much more than introducing the papers of this thematic issue to the reader. It can be considered a space devoted to discussing the Onomastics studies in Brazil, its status, and interdisciplinarity. Initially, we outline a tenuous sketch about interdisciplinarity and onomastic research in Brazil. We also discuss the terminological disagreements among researchers, in general, and among authors for this thematic issue, specifically – not a welcome scenario. Secondly, we revise the concepts related to interdisciplinarity, as multidisciplinarity, pluridisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. In this review, we emphasize its application in onomastic studies in Brazil by presenting attempts to implement inter (or trans) disciplinary routines in research, quoting French and Canadian onomasticians. Finally, the last section introduces to the reader the papers that make up the thematic issue, inviting him to read the whole volume and to reflect on the discussed themes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it