Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo presentamos un estudio exploratorio sobre el tabú lingüístico.Para ello, nos enfocamos en tres ámbitos tabúes: defectos físicos, sexualidad y escatología, en función de dos variables sociales -edad y sexo-, con la finalidad de observar su influencia en la producción de palabras y frases de 18 hablantes de tres grupos de edad (18 a 25 años, 26 a 33 años, 34 a 41 años), nueve hombres y nueve mujeres que viven en la Ciudad de México.El análisis muestra que hay diferencias en el conocimiento de voces tabúes por generación y sexo.Asimismo, los colaboradores proporcionaron una mayor cantidad de vocablos para nombrar el acto de defecar y una menor para nombrar a una persona que no oye; propusimos dos explicaciones al respecto; sin embargo, nos inclinamos por considerar que los ámbitos con mayor variación no son tan tabúes, a diferencia de aquellos con pocas formas para denominarlos que pueden ser vistos como más tabú, porque no se nombran.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.013 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".