Pulmonalis or Pulmonaris? It's Elementarius, My Dear Watson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adjectival suffix -alis and its allomorph -aris are very common in the anatomical nomenclature; however, rules governing differential usage, such as -aris substituting for -alis following an -l-, leave many exceptions. Here, we report an empirical study of 985 adjectives with -alis and -aris suffixes used in Terminologia Anatomica (2nd ed.) and Terminologia Histologica to develop phonological rules that would have fewer exceptions. As a general rule, the default is -alis, but -aris after -l-, except with -r- between. This tripartite rule reduces the exceptions to < 10%, but this can be reduced to < 6% by limiting the distance over which the dissimilation effect of an -l- in the base is expected to operate. After consideration of precedents in classical, late, and medieval Latin, and derivatives in modern Romance and Germanic languages, we recommend the use of pulmonarius, elementarius, unitarius, pulparis, and lumbaris, and compound adjectives created from these words, in place of related adjectival forms that were previously used in anatomical Latin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".