MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395066017 · doi:10.62477/jkmp.v24i1.205

Orwell's 1984 Revisited: Woke Vocabulary & Uncivil Discourse

2024· article· en· W4395066017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Biff Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knowledge Management and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPragmaticsLinguisticsMeaning (existential)VocabularySociologyTerminologyNarrativePsychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantics study how language conveys meaning and is interpreted - examining word meaning, sentence meaning, pragmatics, and meaning representation. A shared understanding of word meanings is crucial for effective communication and social cohesion. Per Orwell’s 1984, political manipulation of language can shape public opinion and advance agendas through propagandistic euphemisms. Language manipulation undermines healthy discourse, critical thinking, and trust: recognizing these tactics is crucial for independent thinking. Understanding the impact of language is crucial for conflict resolution and promoting peace; clarity, empathy, and effective communication strategies enhance understanding. There is an ideological divide between academia and businesses, with a significant skew towards woke terminology and ‘far-left’ concepts. This "Woke Glossary" aims to bridge communication gaps and promote mutual understanding within academia and businesses via critiques. Fostering mutual understanding and effective communication should be our goals for promoting peace and cooperation, whereas woke terms often reinforce division using oppressor versus oppressed narratives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.040
Scholarly communication0.0110.018
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Knowledge Management and PracticeSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207