Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the relevance of mass speech culture research in the context of globalization processes, socio-cultural transformations that contribute to the integration of various speech cultures into national speech cultures, unification of elite and literary speech culture. An attempt was made to analyze various approaches to defining the concept of "speech culture". The factors of formation of speech tastes of modern society have been revealed. The differences between mass speech culture and speech culture are established and a definition of the concept of "mass speech culture" is proposed. The study found that: in the scientific dimension of the first decades of the 21st century. there is no single generally accepted definition of the concept of "speech culture", and the development of the concept of "mass speech culture" is at the nascent stage; at the present stage, it is appropriate to apply the concept of mass culture in relation to speech, as it forms an innovative way of communication that is used by most representatives of modern society in everyday life, regardless of their social role and status. From the point of view of modern cultural studies, speech culture is understood as a multifaceted system formed in the process of speech activity (speaking, reading, listening, writing) on the basis of a unique set and organization of language means in a specific communicative situation, provided that modern language norms and communication ethics are observed , ensures the achievement of communicative tasks set by the individual. Mass speech culture is defined as discursive practices corresponding to social norms of communication, determined by social, cognitive and communicative reasons, which are accepted by the majority of modern society as a norm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".