MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405047455 · doi:10.5539/ells.v6n2p161

A Diachronic Approach to the Motive of Crypto-Functions of Formal Markers in English

2016· article· en· W2405047455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Baohua Dong

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSwearing, Euphemism, Multilingualism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChongqing Municipal Education CommissionChongqing University
KeywordsLinguisticsFormal descriptionComputer scienceDiscourse markerPhenomenonTheoryDistribution (mathematics)Formal languageMathematicsEpistemologyPhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper, based on the exploration of crypto-functions of formal markers in English (Dong, 2016), preliminarily attempts to explicate the motive of their crypto-functions in systemic functional framework through a diachronic approach. The study firstly claims that formal markers can be treated as one of multiple linguistic expressions deployed for constructing the experiential phenomenon. Then the study assumes that the motive of crypto-functions of formal markers can be revealed from the diachronic conventionalization of multiple linguistic expressions towards formal markers in their process of experience construction. And such an assumption has then been tested with the distribution frequencies of formal markers in Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). It is found that, with the diachronic increase of the distribution frequencies of formal markers in COHA, the diachronic conventionalization of multiple linguistic expressions towards formal markers does exist, and that such a conventionalization is then attributed to language chunk composed of formal markers together with other following elements and renders formal markers prefabricate potential, thus resulting in their crypto-functions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicSwearing, Euphemism, MultilingualismFrench-language works237,207