Perspective lingvistico-pragmatice în abordarea textual-discursivă a referinței (considerații teoretice, retrospective şi de perspectivă) / Using Linguistic and Pragmatic Approaches in the Textual and Discursive Studies of Reference (Theory, Retrospectives and Prospectives)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linguistic and pragmatic approach presents reference as an act of language which, according to J.C. Milner’s language theory, distinguishes between the virtual reference, which is independent of any linguistic expression and equivalent to the lexical meaning of an expression, and the current reference, which is determined and it is each time context-sensitive. The linguistic perspective takes into account the models of the linguistic sign: on the one hand, the binary model proposed by F. de Saussure and L. Hjelmslev, the structural one, and, on the other hand, the triadic model introduced by Odgen-Richards, Frege, Morris and Peirce. The context, in all its meanings, will play a decisive role in the analysis/interpretation of the textual-discursive phenomena.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".