Properties of the sociolinguistic monitor<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the perceptual aspect of quantitative sociolinguistic variation in order to derive properties of a sociolinguistic monitor integrated into linguistic processing in real time. A series of experiments measured listeners’ sensitivity to frequencies in the form of variable percentages of the non‐standard apical form of the variable (ING). Subjects heard ten trial readings of broadcast news from the same speaker, and rated them on a seven‐point Likert scale of professional suitability. Responses conformed closely to a logarithmic function in which the effect of each deviation from the norm was proportional to the percent increase in deviations. The logarithmic pattern of responses was replicated in group and individual experiments in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and in group experiments in Columbia, South Carolina and Durham, New Hampshire. South Carolina subjects were less critical of the /in/ variant in news broadcasting but showed the identical logarithmic function in reacting to Northern and Southern speakers. Inferences are drawn on the window of temporal resolution of the sociolinguistic monitor, its sensitivity and the pattern of attenuation over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".