Idiomatic meaning of IDIOM "halcyon days" in institutional discourse: A contextual analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the authors show how the meaning of halcyon days changes in different contexts of institutional discourse revealing potential or rearranging existing semantic primitives (semes) in its semantic structure. Primary attention of the authors is focused on the question how the structural, semantic and functional information on the idiom is to be presented in a monolingual idiom dictionary. The suggested dictionary entry comprises a number of constituent parts, each providing a different type of information about the idiom presented. The constituents of an idiom dictionary entries are as follows: 1. an idiom (lemma), 2.grammatical information (number, structural type, usage information), 3. temporal markers (old or modern, with the reference to the time of appearance in the language), 4. social markers (used by some community, professionals: Naval, Aviation, University staff etc. ), 5.territorial markers (US, UK, Canada), 6. definitions 7. examples revealing implicit senses of the idiom, 8. etymology, 9. cross-references to other entries.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".