Editorial: Grammar in the face of diversity
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
The river one dips one’s toes into from one editorial to the next is never the same, as Heraclitus might have observed. Part 1 of this double issue (December, 2005) consisted of eight articles from contributors based in five countries: the United States, England, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada. Part 2 contains six articles and two teacher narratives from the United States (two), Scotland, the Netherlands, Australia (2), Indonesia and Denmark. The inclusion of contributors from European countries outside of the United Kingdom is a reminder that debates over the “grammar” question are not confined to the Anglophonic world. I am grateful to Amos van Gelderen and Anette Wulff for finding time to contribute to a journal, which hitherto has addressed itself to readers in a relatively small range of (officially) English speaking constituencies. I am also grateful to Handoyo Widodo for his contribution, written in the context of English-language teaching in Indonesia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it