MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7072352447

Vier Gründe für den Phrasemgebrauch

2015· article· de· W7072352447 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublication Server of the Institute for German Language (Institute for German Language) · 2015
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistic research and analysis
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaLiquationDiafiltrationEmperipolesisTriacetinDurvalumab
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dies ist der zweite von vier SPRACHREPORT-Teilen, in denen ich der Frage nachgehe, warum wir Phraseme verwenden, was wir mit ihnen bewirken, wozu wir sie brauchen.Jeder der vier Teile erläutert am Beispiel von Phrasemen aus dem Bildbereich der Küche einen der vier Hauptgründe für ihren Gebrauch.Siehe einleitend Donalies (2012).Teil I: Klar wie Kloßbrühe -Adjektivphraseme: Phraseme sind klar wie Kloßbrühe; sie erleichtern unsere Kommunikation. Teil II: Auf dem Präsentierteller -Substantivphraseme:Phraseme servieren uns auf dem Präsentierteller, sie zeigen und verorten uns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1920.243

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePublication Server of the Institute for German Language (Institute for German Language)Same topicLinguistic research and analysisFrench-language works237,207