Homogeneity as a sociolinguistic motive in Canadian English
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: A comparative sociolinguistic study of a nation‐wide change in Canada in the 1980s led to the unexpected conclusion that the forces that brought about the homogeneity of inland, urban, middle‐class Canadian English were still functioning. Claims for homogeneity (starting in 1951) had previously been impressionistic, but now more rigorous methods give credence to homogeneity as a sociolinguistic motive by revealing virtually identical progress of incipient sound changes in widely separated urban areas. Sociophonetic studies and real time studies corroborate the persistence of homogeneity in this change. More recent studies shed further light on homogeneity as a sociolinguistic motive. Homogeneity is obviously a form of standardization. Both essentially lead to loss (or levelling) of regional differences. I make the case for homogeneity as a sub‐type of standardization, arguing from distinguishable sociolinguistic attributes in lexical and grammatical changes. Homogeneity appears to be a sociolinguistic motive in some changes to this day.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it