MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414909203 · doi:10.1017/9781009552356.006

To Put It Delicately

2025· book-chapter· en· W4414909203 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Leadership and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuphemismGrammarTerm (time)PhenomenonUnintended consequencesExpression (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euphemisms, a particular type of idiom especially prevalent in American English, are vague or indirect expressions that often substitute harsh, embarrassing, or unpleasant terms. They are widely used to navigate sensitive topics like death and sex. “Passing away,” for example, has long been an accepted term to describe the act of dying. When euphemisms are in use for the length of time it takes to become lexicalized, they are often replaced with new ones, a phenomenon known as “the euphemism treadmill.” Correctly interpreting and using euphemisms can be difficult for EFL learners – and can lead to misuse since these expressions may rely on relevant cultural knowledge. That is unfortunate, given that euphemisms hold sensitive meanings. Artificial intelligence (AI) writing assistants can now go beyond grammar correction to suggesting edits for more inclusive language, such as replacing “whitelist” with “allow-list” and “landlord” with “property owner.” Such suggestions can help inform EFLs and users from diverse cultures – who carry a different cultural baggage – of unintended bias in their writing. At the same time, these assistants also run the risk of erasing individual and cultural differences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.030

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicEducational Leadership and PracticesFrench-language works237,207