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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking the recent publication of The Gestural Origin of Language by David Armstrong and Sherman Wilcox as a starting point, this essay discusses a number of issues and difficulties raised by the idea that language first emerged as a gesture-language, only later to become spoken. It is argued that while modern sign languages may throw light on processes that are fundamental to language formation, they cannot be considered representations of an earlier form of language, as some writers seem to suppose, nor does their existence offer any support for a ‘gesture first’ theory. Rather, language must have been, from its first appearance, a multimodal phenomenon. It is pointed out that modern speakers, qua speakers speaking spontaneously, always employ several modalities together in a complex orchestration. However, the model of language generally followed in linguistics, whether the language studied is spoken or signed, does not usually take this into consideration. An abstracted idea of language is usually employed, developed largely because the systematic study of language usually considers language only in its written form, and not as it is manifested when spoken, when it is an activity that involves the whole body, and not just the so-called ‘speech apparatus’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it