MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140166192 · doi:10.1177/0075424209339924

“Aren’t We Proud of Our Language?”

2009· article· en· W2140166192 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of English Linguistics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVernacularVariety (cybernetics)CommodificationCharacter (mathematics)Media studiesSociologyMainlandLinguisticsHistoryAdvertisingArtLiteratureComputer scienceBusinessArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article involves an analysis of a television commercial set in rural Newfoundland, Canada in which the main actor’s performance of Vernacular Newfoundland English is accompanied by subtitles consisting of ostensibly humorous nonparallelisms rendered in Standard English. The discursive strategy employed by the ad’s creators, of highlighting difference, “others” the character and by extension actual speakers of the local variety. The appearance of the commercial on national television resulted in intense debate, particularly in Newfoundland and to some extent in mainland Canada. A video parody responding to the original commercial and an online discussion of the issues on a variety of Web sites are also analyzed. The debate focuses on (in)authenticity (in particular, on who has the right to perform the vernacular) and on the commodification of regional language and culture in media representations.

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)0.145
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.145
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.316 · 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