Tra misoneismo e ""fedeltà linguistica"" : la percezione dei neologismi in un campione di parlanti
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riassunto : Lo studio ha lo scopo di osservare la percezione dei neologismi da parte del parlante medio. Per farlo si sono prese in considerazione le osservazioni di un campione di parlanti sulle parole agnellato, ghostare, poliamore, skincare. Tali osservazioni sono state raccolte tramite due canali: 1) i commenti ai post su Facebook dell’Accademia della Crusca relativi agli studi sulle quattro parole; 2) un questionario online. Si registrano vari atteggiamenti all’interno del campione: un consueto atteggiamento censorio, dietro il quale convivono diversi aspetti (a volte, la presunta difesa della lingua è soltanto un pretesto per ricorrere al linguaggio d’odio; in molti altri casi, invece, la resistenza nei confronti del “nuovo” è la spia della cosiddetta “fedeltà linguistica”) ma anche idee maggiormente liberali (emerse in particolare dal questionario, più che dai commenti sul social).||Abstract : The study aims to observe the perception of neologisms by the average speaker. To do this, it takes into consideration the observations of a sample of speakers on the words agnellato, ghostare, poliamore, skincare. These observations were collected through 1) the comments on the Facebook posts of the Accademia della Crusca about the studies on the four words; 2) an online questionnaire. Within the speakers, various attitudes are recorded: a censorious attitude, behind which various aspects coexist (the pretext for resorting to hate speech; the so-called “linguistic fidelity”) but also more liberal ideas (emerging in particular from the questionnaire, rather than from the comments on the social network).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".