Relabelling: A Major Process in Language Contact
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 problem of language contact may be taken up from two opposite angles: the processes at work in language contact situations or the language contact varieties. In this paper, I look at contact phenomena from the former angle. I focus on one process: relabelling, a mental operation that consists in assigning a lexical entry of a given language, L1, a new label taken from another language, L2. The aim of this paper is threefold: first, to assess the extent of relabelling across language contact situations; second, to assess the extent of relabelling across lexicons; and third, to assess the possibility of relabelling in cases of agglutinative languages. The approach taken in this paper highlights the importance of the process of relabelling in a variety of language contact situations. Furthermore, it makes it possible to analyse in a unified way the contribution of a single process to the makeup of various language varieties arising in different contact situations, and thus to link a number of contact phenomena and situations that would otherwise remain separate.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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