MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Article use in Cameroon English and in non‐standard British English

2011· article· en· W1565365468 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Englishes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandard EnglishHistoryMeaning (existential)British EnglishLinguisticsVarieties of EnglishSociologyPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: This study is concerned with the various uses of articles in certain non‐standard dialects of British English and in Cameroon English (CamE). Variations in the use of definite and indefinite articles are dealt with. More specifically, the paper examines various contexts in which definite and indefinite articles are used in Cameroon: specific and non‐specific reference, institutional and non‐institutional meaning, count and noncount uses, among others. This paper is based on the observation that the influence of the British colonists, especially missionaries (many of whom were not always speakers of Standardized varieties of British English), on various CamE grammatical usages in general and article use in particular has so far been grossly under‐researched. In fact, in some contexts, a sizable portion of educated CamE speakers use the articles in much the same way as speakers of certain non‐standard dialects of the British Isles. One of the conclusions this paper arrives at is that the history of colonization and evangelization through mission schools might have played a major role in the transportation to, and transplantation into, the colonies (Cameroon in this case), of British non‐standard dialects, many features of which eventually took root.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it