Aspects of multiculturalism in the diminutivisation of anthroponyms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper mainly aims to identify the psychological, affective and sociolinguistic motivations that determine the change of the basic form of an anthroponym, in our case the evolution towards a diminutive form. The research is based on a comparative analysis between the multicultural elements that influence the process of turning proper names specific to Romanian and European areas into diminutives. To illustrate the goals of our research, we will begin by classifying the anthroponyms into two main categories − conventional (official) names and unconventional names (hypocoristics). There is a certain degree of relativity regarding the use of diminutive forms of proper names in European space, as they have a twofold character in the process of naming: on the one hand, they denote feelings of affection and, on the other, a certain degree of irony. The methodology employed consists of methods and concepts specific to onomastics, psycholinguistics and sociolinguistics. The body of the paper will illustrate and analyse pieces of information and results obtained through sociolinguistic inquiry and surveys and will also introduce examples taken from online sources.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".