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
Phraseological units are stable sayings, idiomatic constructions, the meaning of which is not defined literally. They are perceived as a single whole and are used by native speakers in a fixed format. In other words, phraseological unit is a semantically related combination of words, which, unlike similar syntactic structures (phrases or sentences), does not arise in the process of speech in accordance with the general grammatical and semantic patterns of the combination of lexemes, but is reproduced in the form of an established, indivisible, integral structure. These meanings are contextual and above all figurative and figurative. In modern linguistics, several types of classifications of phraseological units are known. One of them is based on the semantic fusion of its components. The purpose of the research is to identify the general regularities and peculiarities of the semantics of phraseological units with numerological components “one”, “two”, “three”, “four”, “five” in different languages. The article presents the semantic differences and similarities of phraseological units with a numerological component in three languages: French, Canadian French, and English. The author of this article seeks to identify all similarities and differences, using material collected from phraseological dictionaries and phraseology manuals of the analyzed languages, comparing the disclosure of individual topics, the frequency of the appearance of numerical components in phraseological units, their types and meanings according to different linguistic images of the world. During the research we used different methods including: cross-sectional study, descriptive study, relational study, comparative study, descriptive and explanatory approaches. The database obtained allows us to conclude that along with phraseological units in which the numerical component retains its original number value, there are also phraseological units in which the meaning of this component is completely or partially dismantled, which is due to the reflection of the history, mythology, religion and superstitions of the people.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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