English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Considering the description of a method in a research paper, which is the most natural way to express how we refer to the method? Is there a rule about when to use named vs labeled?
In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK".
In this paper, we will describe our new method labeled "KICK".
In this paper, we will describe our new method called "KICK".
In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".
A name is different than a label.
Name: a word by which a person or thing is known
Label: an identifying or descriptive marker that is attached to an object
So a label might have your name on it, but often it has something else on it, such as a warning, or description, or classification.
A rule of thumb is that names are unique(ish) and labels are not.
In the example question, it looks like the word you want is "name".
Consider this website: the question's name is the question headline itself: "Is the usage of 'labeled' preferred to the usage of 'named'?". The question's labels are its tags: "usage".
Edit: I just noticed your edit to this question. The third and fourth sentences carry the same meaning as "named". You are "called" by your name, usually. I'd use "named" or go with the fourth option, which just names the method. There are lots of synonyms for "name" but, importantly, "label" isn't really one of them.
Edit 2: Google's built-in dictionary defines label as
a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive.
This strengthens the notion that while labels are related to names, names are not a subset of labels (though labels might be said to be a subset of names).
Named is preferred in your example, since you are formally giving a name to your method.
Labelling (beyond the literal) generally infers that someone else has suggested an alternative name for something.
Microsoft named their browser 'Internet Explorer', but it's often labelled as 'Internet Exploder'!
Edit: Labelling is something you do when you categorise something informally; that is, you are attaching a virtual label to it, some meta-data, if you will. For example,
Critics have labelled Project X a disaster from start to finish
Pardon the brevity of this answer, but I would say "named" is preferred within the context of your example. Thus:
In this paper, we will describe our new method named "KICK".
Better still, you can omit "named" or "labeled" altogether for succinctness:
In this paper, we will describe our new method, "KICK".
The comma before "KICK" is sometimes treated as a matter of preference.
Name is a better choice than label if you are giving a name to something new. The latter is used when you want to describe or give information about something instead.
For example, we say name the baby but not label the baby, don't label me as stupid but not don't name me as stupid, and label the medication with this sticker but not name the medication with this sticker.
You should actually use neither. The implication is obvious:
Here we discuss our new method "Fantastic Method".
To draw a parallel:
Here we discuss our child named Thomas.
Or:
Here we discuss our child labeled Thomas.
