In the modern aviation context, is the word "supercharger" generally assumed to mean a gear-driven system rather than an exhaust-driven system? In the modern aviation context, is the word "supercharger" generally assumed to mean a gear-driven system rather than an exhaust-driven system?

At one time the word "supercharger" often was used to encompass both turbosuperchargers (aka turbochargers) which were exhaust-driven, and gear-driven superchargers.  But I have seen the word "supercharger" used to specifically mean a gear-driven system as distinct from an exhaust-driven system.  Would this usage be generally considered unambigous and good practice in the modern aviation context?  Or at least, very common practice in the modern aviation context?

(Include belt-driven along with gear-driven, if such a thing even exists in aviation engines.  The question is about exhaust-driven versus mechanically-driven devices, and how these two different sorts of devices map out against the various terminology in current aviation use.)

A supplemental question might be: "Has the word 'turbosupercharger' completely disappeared from modern aviation terminology?"
"Turbosupercharger" was General Electric's official term for their system, probably the first mass produced turbocharging system and was used on a range of US fighters and bombers (the system was very sensitive to back pressure in the turbine outlet which could promote stalling, and so they either had the turbine exposed like on the P-38, or if there was an exhaust duct it was very very short).

Anything that compresses the intake charge is a supercharger. Prior to the GE system, they were all mechanically driven and the mechanical drive naturally had horsepower losses associated with that type of drive.  GE added the word turbo to differentiate between the common gear driven or direct driven supercharger and their new and novel system that eliminated most of the energy losses from compressing air.

Move forward into the post war era and the adoption of systems to cars and light aircraft and people get annoyed having to say this pain in the butt 6 syllable word and start to cut out the "super" part, because it doesn't really detract from the meaning, and there you are with "turbocharger" for both cars and airplanes.

Meanwhile, "supercharger" stays as it always was and remains associated with mechanical systems, because the terms, although incomplete technically, don't contradict each other on common usage they continue.