Historical, semantic and structural aspects of marine terminology: A case study of Canadian variant of French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Исследование посвящено изучению исторических, структурных и семантических вопросов морской терминологии на основе сравнения терминологических систем французского языка Франции и канадского варианта французского языка, а также изучению влияния возможных особенностей на процесс перевода текстов данной тематики. Представлен анализ развития специализированной лексики в области морского дела и навигации в контексте особых географических и исторических условий Канады. Дается определение понятий «термин» и «терминологическая система». В качестве основного метода исследования используется реверсивный метод, который позволяет установить уровень эквивалентности между терминами и выявить типичные ошибки при составлении двуязычных терминологических словарей.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Study of marine terminology in Canadian French; terminology and translation linguistics, not the research system.
This linguistic study examines marine terminology and translation rather than research itself.
Linguistic/terminological comparison of French marine vocabulary; object is language and translation, not research itself.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".