ANALYSE SOCIOTERMINOLOGIQUE, MORPHOLOGIQUE, LEXICOLOGIQUE ET SÃMANTIQUE DE LA TERMINOLOGIE DU TERRORISME
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The different activities that characterize the planning, sponsoring and execution of terrorist acts, measures and strategies for countering terrorism, lead to new terminological constructions in English and French. However, research shows that terminologists are yet to show interest in the study, analysis, and development of the field even though the daily activities, exchanges, debates, etc., involving specialists, scholars, researchers, politicians, stakeholders, or terrorists, who either perpetrate or fight against terrorism, lead to abundant lexical creativity. The present terminological inactivity in the field of terrorism may be, among other reasons, due to the fact that the definition of terrorism remains a purely theoretical issue and that one man’s terrorist often turns out to be another man’s freedom fighter. \nThis study is an effort to remedy the terminological lacunae in the field of terrorism. It contributes to the increasing efforts to understand and document terrorism in all its ramifications. The study explores the concept of terrorism from the etymology of the term, its present lack of a generally acceptable definition, to the different reactions and measures for countering terrorism at both domestic (from the perspective of a select number of countries) and international (from the perspective of the international community—United Nations) levels. It explores the status of terrorism as a terminological domain with the aim of: a) analyzing the concepts and notional structures of the field of terrorism; b) identifying the terms assigned to the concepts; c) establishing correspondence between terrorism terms in French and their English equivalents; d) compiling a bilingual (French/English) lexicon for the subject field. The study highlights not only the functions of terminological units in different discourse contexts, but also the attitudes of humans in relation to term usage in a variety of cultural, ideological and religious contexts.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".