Does the term "frivolous" need to be defined as either objective or subjective?

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, supra, page 913 defines "frivolous" to mean "of little weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact: light, slight, sham, irrelevant, superficial...." We find this term ambiguous, because its plain and ordinary meaning does not indicate whether it imposes an objective standard, a subjective standard, or both. (See In re Marriage of Flaherty, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 649, 183 Cal.Rptr. 508, 646 P.2d 179.) Furthermore, California case law has adopted more than one standard for the term "frivolous." Under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, for example, frivolity is determined using an objective standard. ( Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 387, 401, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 436.) Elsewhere, courts have stated that the term includes both objective and subjective standards. (See **444 Millennium Corporate Solutions v. Peckinpaugh (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 352, 360, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 500 [sanctions imposed for frivolous appeal].)