MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378894699 · doi:10.58938/ni572

Zum Namen des Inns

2017· article· de· W4378894699 on OpenAlex
Harald Bichlmeier

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNamenkundliche Informationen · 2017
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and language evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCeltic languagesRoot (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)HistoryLiteraturePhilosophyArtAncient historyLinguisticsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Usually, in the linguistic literature on the hydronym Inn two stems are reconstructed: PCelt. *Eno- and *Eni̯o-. These stems are thought to be derived from the root PIE *pen- ‘mud(dy), (standing) water’. It is not possible to decide, whether the name was coined in Proto-Celtic or is a celticized Pre-Proto-Celtic formation. An explanation for the parallel stem-formations was given already by Pokorny 1948/1949 and 1950/1951. His explanation seems widely to have fallen into oblivion. Both articles have hardly been quoted in scientific literature during the last quarter century. Only Greule 2014 makes use again at least of the older of the two articles, modifying their explanation, however. A root PIE *(h1)en- ‘water’, which has been used time and again to explain the river-name Inn, most probably never existed.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.005

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.235 · 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