MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Linguistic Anthropology at the End of the Naughts: A Review of 2009

2010· review· en· W2075806478 on OpenAlex
Francis Cody

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Anthropologist · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguistic anthropologySociologySemioticsLinguisticsPhenomenonFocus (optics)Field (mathematics)AnthropologyAdjectiveEpistemologyGlobalizationSet (abstract data type)PhilosophyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Here I consider some of the major themes that emerged in linguistic anthropology in 2009, focusing on intersections with other disciplinary fields. Research on globalization, citizenship, publics, footing, and register formation shows how linguistic anthropology has developed a distinctive set of tools to address broad questions in the human sciences. The subdiscipline remains centrally concerned with the semiotic qualities specific to language and the forms of social life that these qualities enable. “Language” has not yet dissolved into a weak adjective in quite the same way that “culture” or “society” seem to have done, and much of the most sophisticated conceptual work on the semiotics of life lived collectively continues to focus on the concrete aspects of this multifaceted phenomenon. Linguistic anthropology maintains a relatively stable theoretical core compared to its subdisciplinary siblings, even if few of us would agree on what constitutes the limits of the field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.183
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.447 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it