MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1813799103

Levantine Arabic: A Surface Register Contrastive Study

2013· article· en· W1813799103 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in literature and language · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModern Standard ArabicArabicLinguisticsVariety (cybernetics)Arabic languagesTaxonomy (biology)DiglossiaPalestineHistoryComputer scienceAncient historyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Levantine Arabic, also referred to as Eastern Arabic, is a variety of spoken Arabic. It is considered one of the major dialects of Arabic, spoken within the eastern Mediterranean coastal strip, including Lebanon, part of Palestine, Syria and western Jordan. In the frame of the general diglossic status of the Arab world, Levantine Arabic is used in informal situations, while most of the written and official documents and media use Modern Standard Arabic, also referred to as Classical Arabic. Levantine colloquial Arabic is so different from the Modern Standard Arabic that the two varieties are not mutually intelligible. This study aims to introduce the major differences between the two varieties within the framework of Surface Strategy Taxonomy. Key words: Modern Standard Arabic; Levantine Arabic Surface strategy taxonomy

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.262 · 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