Dominant group/Two-word terms

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Space Shuttle is a two-word term. This image shows STS-1 with the Orbiter Space Shuttle Columbia at the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A. Credit: NASA.

Dominant group is a two-word term.

"[T]wo-word glossary items are the most common technical terms".[1] "Human use is supported by published glossaries, on-line glossary reference tools, and authoring environments that use glossaries to enable or enforce terminological consistency."[1]

"[M]ost technical jargon is not likely to be included in a general-purpose dictionary."[1]

Dominant group is an adjective (A), noun (N) glossary term.

Words[edit]

Def. "words which are not found in a dictionary",[1] are called out-of-vocabulary words.

Two-word terms[edit]

"The compound two-word term is employed to give more precision than either word alone would have, not being exact synonyms. And each word indicates the sense in which the other is used."[2] Bold added.

Def. "words which are not found in a dictionary"[1] are called out-of-vocabulary words.

Human conditions[edit]

"The human condition encompasses the unique and believed to be inescapable features of being human."[3]

"It can be described as the irreducible part of humanity that is inherent and not dependent on factors such as gender, race or class. It includes concerns such as the meaning of life, the search for gratification, the sense of curiosity, the inevitability of isolation, or anxiety regarding the inescapability of death."[3]

The humanities are a set of disciplines and fields that "help us to understand the nature of the human condition and the broader cultural and social arrangements that make up human lives."[3]

"The human condition is the subject of such fields of study as philosophy, theology, sociology, psychology, anthropology, demographics, evolutionary biology, cultural studies, and sociobiology. The philosophical school of existentialism deals with core issues related to the human condition including the ongoing search for ultimate meaning."[3]

Enduring questions[edit]

Funding Number 20130912-AQ Enduring Questions, Open Date 05/29/2013 to 09/12/2013.

"The NEH Enduring Questions grant program supports faculty members in the teaching and development of a new course that will foster intellectual community through the study of an enduring question. This question-driven course will encourage undergraduates and teachers to grapple with a fundamental concern of human life addressed by the humanities, and to join together in a deep and sustained program of reading in order to encounter influential thinkers over the centuries and into the present day. What is an enduring question? The following list is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive but serves to illustrate. • What is good government? • Can war be just? • What is friendship? • What is evil? • Are there universals in human nature? • What are the origins of the universe? Enduring questions are questions to which no discipline, field, or profession can lay an exclusive claim. In many cases they predate the formation of the academic disciplines themselves. Enduring questions can be tackled by reflective individuals regardless of their chosen vocations, areas of expertise, or personal backgrounds. They are questions that have more than one plausible or compelling answer. They have long held interest for young people, and they allow for a special, intense dialogue across generations. The Enduring Questions grant program will help promote such dialogue in today’s undergraduate environment. The course is to be developed by one or more (up to four) faculty members at a single institution, but not team taught. Enduring Questions courses must be taught from a common syllabus and must be offered during the grant period at least twice by each faculty member involved in developing the course. The grant supports the work of faculty members in designing, preparing, and assessing the new course. It may also be used for ancillary activities that enhance faculty-student intellectual community, such as visits to museums and artistic or cultural events. An Enduring Questions course may be taught by faculty from any department or discipline in the humanities or by faculty outside the humanities (for example, astronomy, biology, economics, law, mathematics, medicine, or psychology), so long as humanities sources are central to the course."[4]

An enduring question: "Is dominant group a universal in human nature?"

Key terms[edit]

"A key-word is a single word with high frequency over the set of Web pages, and a key-term is a two-word term with very high frequency."[5]

Relative synonyms[edit]

The relative synonyms of dominant group fall into the following set of orderable pairs:

Relative synonyms for dominant group[6]
Synonym for "dominant" Category Number Category Title Synonym for "group" Category Number Catgeory Title
“superior” 36 SUPERIORITY "arrangement" 60 ARRANGEMENT
“influential” 171 INFLUENCE "class" 61 CLASSIFICATION
“musical note” 462 HARMONICS "assembly" 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“most important” 670 IMPORTANCE "size" 194 SIZE
“governing” 739 GOVERNMENT "painting", "grouping" 572 ART
"master" 747 MASTER "association", "set" 786 ASSOCIATION
----- --- ------- "sect" 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS

'Orderable' means that any synonym from within the first category can be ordered with any synonym from the second category to form an alternate term for dominant group; for example, "superior class", "influential sect", "master assembly", "most important group", and "dominant painting". "Dominant" falls into category 171. "Group" is in category 61. Further, any word which has its most or much more common usage within these categories may also form an alternate term, such as "ruling group", where "ruling" has its most common usage in category 739, or "dominant party", where "party" is in category 74. "Taxon" or "taxa" are like "species" in category 61. "Society" is in category 786 so there is a "dominant society".

Term filtering[edit]

"Two-word terms [are] determined not to be of interest in the context of the whole document collection either because they do not occur frequently enough or because they occur in a constant distribution among different documents [deviation-based approach]."[7]

Low frequency[edit]

Using a relative synonym, or "meta-term", such as "influential classification" may work unless the "scholarly popularity" is too restrictive.

Number of articles on Google scholar.
Genus Number of articles Two-word terms Popularity in articles Percentage (%)
"group" 5,910,000 "control group" 2,340,000 39.6
"group" 5,910,000 "social group" 964,000 16.3
"group" 5,910,000 "whole group" 245,000 4.15
"species" 4,630,000 "dominant species" 168,000 3.63
"group" 5,910,000 "dominant group" 69,000 1.17
"genus" 1,990,000 "genus species" 22,600 1.14
"wagon" 370,000 "red wagon"[8] (suggested non technical phrase) 3,610 0.976
"chair" 3,090,000 "comfortable chair"[8] (suggested non technical phrase) 21,400 0.693
"genus" 1,990,000 "species genus" 13,500 0.678
"type" 6,200,000 "dominant type" 30,500 0.492
"group" 5,910,000 "influential group" 13,100 0.222
"genus" 1,990,000 "dominant genus" 3,070 0.154
"genera" 2,600,000 "dominant genera" 3,950 0.152
“classification” 2,620,000 "control classification" 3,800 0.145
"support" 4,140,000 "content support" (meta-term for "comfortable chair") 3,190 0.077
"vehicle" 2,520,000 "red vehicle" (meta-term for "red wagon") 708 0.028
"classification" 2,620,000 "dominant classification" 506 0.019
“classification” 2,620,000 "influential classification" 421 0.016
“support” 4,140,000 "satisfying support" (alternate meta-term) 285 0.0069

As suggested in the Google scholar "popularity" table above two-word terms below the traditional phrase "genus species" are too restrictive either in popularity or non technicalness. While other synonyms may alter the picture suggested above, terms such as category1 + category2, category1 + "group", and "dominant" + category2 have neither "scholarly" popularity nor technicalness.

The genus term "group" seems to be an adequate starting point.

Constant frequency[edit]

As the following table of subject popularity shows, individual subjects, especially named by one word versus two have high popularity among the document collection sampled by the Google scholar search engine.

Number of articles per subject on Google scholar.
Two-word term Number of articles Subject Number of subject articles Percentage (%)
"credit card" 483,000 paleontology 249,000 0.298
"dominant group" 71,200 anthropology 1,320,000 1.30
"dominant group" 71,200 archaeology 794,000 0.558
"dominant group" 71,200 art 4,620,000 0.472
"dominant group" 71,200 astronomy 1,780,000 0.073
"dominant group" 71,200 astrophysics 730,000 0.046
"dominant group" 71,200 "atmospheric science" 101,000 0.048
"dominant group" 71,200 biology 4,600,000 0.289
"dominant group" 71,200 chemistry 5,130,000 0.102
"dominant group" 71,200 communication 4,560,000 0.757
"dominant group" 71,200 culture 4,490,000 1.23
"dominant group" 71,200 economics 2,630,000 1.13
"dominant group" 71,200 education 4,030,000 1.16
"dominant group" 71,200 ethnicity 1,340,000 2.77
“dominant group” 71,200 evolution 3,930,000 0.583
"dominant group" 71,200 geography 1,980,000 1.02
"dominant group" 71,200 geology 1,710,000 0.249
"dominant group" 71,200 history 3,400,000 1.54
"dominant group" 71,200 humanities 1,480,000 0.445
“dominant group” 71,200 language 2,900,000 1.58
“dominant group” 71,200 law 1,360,000 2.61
“dominant group” 71,200 literature 5,180,000 0.90
“dominant group” 71,200 "materials science" 1,170,000 0.01
“dominant group” 71,200 metagenome 6,930 3.61
“dominant group” 71,200 music 2,590,000 0.552
“dominant group” 71,200 mythology 385,000 1.37
“dominant group” 71,200 "of the" 8,370,000 0.855
“dominant group” 71,200 paleontology 249,000 0.393
“dominant group” 71,200 "performing arts" 125,000 0.608
“dominant group” 71,200 philosophy 2,340,000 0.979
“dominant group” 71,200 physics 4,370,000 0.096
“dominant group” 71,200 "planetary science" 483,000 0.039
“dominant group” 71,200 "political science" 1,270,000 0.709
“dominant group” 71,200 psychology 2,510,000 1.01
“dominant group” 71,200 "red wagon" 3,690 0.136 (all are books)
“dominant group” 71,200 regions 5,360,000 0.580
“dominant group” 71,200 religion 1,990,000 1.40
“dominant group” 71,200 semantics 1,280,000 0.441
“dominant group” 71,200 sociology 1,890,000 1.40
“dominant group” 71,200 technology 6,250,000 0.376
“dominant group” 71,200 theology 1,080,000 0.470
“dominant pickle” 1 "of the" 8,370,000 0.001
“net income” 253,000 paleontology 249,000 0.061
“net income” 253,000 technology 6,250,000 1.03

To comment on sampling, "dominant group" alone yields about 71,200 resources. Using "of the" followed by "dominant group" returns 71,600, and "dominant group" followed by "of the" yields 71,900. Or, this suggests the total for "dominant group" is 71,550±350. This is an error of 0.489 %.

The frequency of "dominant group" in these subject areas ranges from 3.61 to 0.01 per cent, which is a range of ~3 x 102. The number of occurrences of "dominant group" in any subject is low suggesting that it is not relevant but may only be an artifact of author word choice.

In Google scholar searches, "credit card" may appear more often associated with articles than "net income", for example, because of the common occurrence of the sentence "The only accepted payment is by credit card." with regard to purchasing a copy of the article or book.

"Fresh-pack pickles are the dominant pickle products in retail groceries and supermarkets."[9]

Significant variations[edit]

The statistical significance approach "is to test whether the variation of the relative frequency of a given term t in the document collection is statistically significant."[7]

Term relevances[edit]

"The notion of term relevance with respect to a document collection is [determined by assigning] each term its score based on maximal tf-idf (term frequency - inverse document frequency, maximal with respect to all the documents in the collection) [information retrieval approach]."[7] For example, "net income" received a score of 17.17, but "big bank" received only 5.39 [which is above the irrelevance cutoff].[7] "Credit card" did not make the cutoff.[7]

Depending on the meaning of "big bank", it may be a relative synonym for dominant group. "Big" may suggest "important" (one of its synonyms) and a "bank" might be considered an "assemblage" (also a synonym), although the two words taken individually have more popular meanings.

Hypotheses[edit]

Hypothesis:

  1. Dominant group originated as the only group of hominins allowed to breed.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Youngja Park, Roy J Byrd and Branimir Boguraev (2002). Automatic Glossary Extraction: Beyond Terminology Identification, In: "Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics" (PDF). Morristown, New Jersey. pp. 772–8. Retrieved 2012-03-05.
  2. Robert I. Coulter (1954). "Typewritten Library Manuscripts are not Printed Publications". Journal of the Patent Office Society 36: 258. http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jpatos36&section=44. Retrieved 2012-06-21. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 "Human condition, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. January 13, 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-14.
  4. Health and Human Services. "Individual Registration". Washington, DC USA: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
  5. Yongzheng Zhang, Nur Zincir-Heywood, Evangelos Milios (2004). "World Wide Web site summarization". Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 2 (1): 39-53. http://iospress.metapress.com/content/efb6dxqpwfpe21k3/. Retrieved 2012-06-21. 
  6. Peter Mark Roget (1969). Lester V. Berrey and Gorton Carruth, ed. Roget's International Thesaurus, third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. p. 1258. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Ronen Feldman, Moshe Fresko, Yakkov Kinar, Yehuda Lindell, Orly Liphstat, Martin Rajman, Yonatan Schler and Oren Zamir (1998). "Text mining at the term level". Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1510 (1998): 65-73. doi:10.1007/BFb0094806. http://www.fmt.vein.hu/softcomp/dw/egyeni/textmining/irodalom/Feldmanetal98a.pdf. Retrieved 2012-03-05. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 Kaldari (September 22, 2011). "Requests for Deletion#Dominant group and subpages, In: Wikiversity". Retrieved 2011-10-22.
  9. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3582: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil).

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

{{Dominant group}}{{Linguistics resources}}{{Semantics resources}}{{Terminology resources}}{{Universal translator}}