<b>Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages.</b> Edited by Wolfgang Kehrein and Richard Wiese. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 386.) Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1998. Pp. viii, 298. Paper. DM 146,00.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume brings together a collection of twelve papers originating from a workshop entitled “Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages,” which the editors organized at the Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany, in August 1997. It is divided into three sections: phonology, prosodic morphology, and morphology. A variety of languages and topics are treated, ranging from Icelandic vowel length and Scandinavian accent to Old English, Dutch, and German nominal inflection. There is some treatment of earlier stages of languages and historical topics do come up, but the emphasis is decidedly synchronic. Almost all the papers adopt a constraint-based approach, and a number are developed within the framework of optimality theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 1993). A brief overview of each of the papers follows.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".