ARE YOU A BOOKBURNER? “PEOPLE AND SOCIETY” NEOLOGISMS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 21ST CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diachronic study of a language demonstrates how the language changes significantly over a period of time and neologisms are one of the greatest indicators of language transformation. Therefore, the field of neologisms which came to existence in the English language in the period from 1950 to 2000 and which belong to the semantic group labeled as "people and society" is morphologically examined. This semantic group comprises neologisms related to characteristics of people, their habits, social groups as well as typical social phenomena such as human rights, education, religion, etc. Methods applied in this research are method of corpus analysis, method of diachronic and synchronic analysis and method of questionnaire. The main hypothesis is that neologisms in the semantic field of ‘people and society’ have quantitative ascent since the commencement of the 1950s until the year 2000. The supporting hypotheses are related to productivity of each major word formation process and instability of neologisms. Productivity of certain word formations, derivation and compounding in particular, is examined in the coinage of ‘people and society’ neologisms. Stability/instability of neologisms is examined in two ways: through corpus analysis and survey. Namely, research on frequency of neologisms coined in the 1950s in contemporary dictionaries of the English language is carried out. Native speakers’ knowledge of these neologisms is examined by means of survey among native speakers from Canada, Australia, the USA and the UK. The overall aim of this research is thorough analysis of neologisms that entered the English language since the middle of the twentieth century and examination of recent trends in English word formation. Keywords: word, word formation process, neologism, categorization, people and society
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".