The asymmetry in the structures of the variants of the concept the tatar language in the tatar, Russian and english-speaking mentaleses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2015 Canadian Center of Science and Education. All rights reserved. The author of this article analyzes the results of a series of the free associative experiments with a view to identify the specific features of the basic layers and interpretive fields of the concepts Tatar Tele/Tatarskiy Yazyk/the Tatar Language in the Tatar monolingual and bilingual, Russian and English-speaking mentaleses. The author comes to the conclusion that of the concepts have different representations in the above mentioned mentaleses. The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the necessity to single out structural particularities of the concepts under study. The author is interested in the level of the streotypeness of the concepts and ethnical identification of the linguistic identity of the Tatar, Russian and English native-speakers. The additional relevance to the present research is given by the problem of natural and artificial bilingualism.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it