Linguistic Means of Expressing the Category of Temporality in Modern Political Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of new challenges of the present necessitates the modernization of approaches to understanding the category of time and its connection with the political life of the state. It requires wide use of linguistic means because the existing trends of globalization require an adequate perception of the need for political changes and their temporality. Therefore, the issue of studying the phenomenon of temporality in political discourse as a two-pronged objective-subjective category of cognition of the world and political life in time, as well as the linguistic means of its expression, is becoming more relevant. The article is aimed at theoretical and applied research of linguistic means of expressing the category of temporality in modern political discourse. The methodological basis of the study is the following methods of scientific cognition and analysis: descriptive method, system analysis, synthesis, scientific abstraction, component analysis, comparison, analogy, generalization, systematization, and graphical method. Based on the results of the study, it has been established that the need to express the category of temporality is especially relevant in modern political discourse. This category involves the comprehension and interpretation of past political events, objective assessment and vision of the current state of functioning of the political sphere, and making the right decisions in the future. It can be achieved through well-chosen linguistic means. Moreover, it has been revealed that the most commonly used linguistic means of expressing temporality in modern political discourse are manipulations. They are an effective means of influencing the public consciousness and forming an opinion about the current state and trends in the development of political processes. The necessity of modernization of linguistic methods of expressing temporality in political discourse under the requirements and challenges of modernity has been proven.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".