The western Canada‐US border as a linguistic boundary: The roles of L1 and L2 speakers
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
ABSTRACT: The present paper uses data from written self‐reports from two points of time, 2004 and 2008–10, to gauge the strength of the Canada‐US linguistic border in British Columbia's Lower Mainland. With parallel data sets from Metro Vancouver, Canada, and adjacent Washington State, Vancouver English is characterized as a vernacular that – for the 30 variables studied – is not undergoing Americanization. The data for young local residents who were at least raised, if not born, in the target regions provide solid evidence that present‐day Vancouver English is best identified as a linguistically more conservative variety than the vernacular of Washington State. Speakers of second‐language varieties of English in Vancouver are shown to amplify differences already present in the local population. While the linguistic boundary in Canada's westernmost province is rarely an isogloss in the qualitative sense of the term (applying only to two cases), it appears to be a stable linguistic boundary in quantitative and statistically significant terms for the variables investigated.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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