Sulla proposta di creazione di un nuovo genere in italiano : riflessioni, problemi, simboli
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
Riassunto : L’articolo affronta la questione del genere grammaticale nel dibattito contemporaneo riguardante l’italiano, evidenziando una connessione tra la questione dell’uso sessista della lingua – in particolare del maschile sovraesteso – e la proposta di creazione di un nuovo genere con morfemi flessionali -? (singolare) e -3 (plurale) per favorire l’inclusività dei soggetti sessualmente non-binary. Tale cambiamento sarebbe di grande impatto sulla ristrutturazione morfologica dell’italiano e per questo si è aperto un accesissimo dibattito, ancora in corso, di cui qui si dà conto. Nell’ultima parte del contributo si presentano i risultati di una prima ricognizione volta a sondare la conoscenza di -? e -3 in un campione di utenti.||Abstract : The paper addresses the issue of grammatical gender in the contemporary debate about Italian Language, highlighting a connection between the issue of sexism – rapresented by the use of masculine gender – and the recent proposal to create a new gender, using the morphemes -? (singular) and -3 (plural), referred to non-binary people. The change would have a great impact on morphology of Italian Language and for this reason it has raised a very heated debate which is still ongoing and reported here. In the last part of the paper is reported the result of a survey on the knowlegde of -? e -3 in users.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it