The Sociolinguistic Distribution of and Attitudes Toward Focuser <i>like</i> and Quotative <i>like</i>
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
This paper accomplishes three tasks: it considers the actual age and gender distribution of like in a corpus of informal U.S. English, compares the findings of that study with the perceived age and gender distribution as determined by a questionnaire study and a matched‐guise study, and analyzes specific sociolinguistic stereotypes associated with this usage. It is found that younger people use both kinds of like more often than older people do, and that men and women use it approximately equally often. The perceived age and gender distribution is quite different, however; young women are perceived as using like most often. Additionally, informants guess the age of like guises as younger than they do the age of non‐ like guises in a matched‐guise study, and also rate like guises more positively in terms of solidarity‐based criteria, but less positively in terms of status‐based criteria.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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