MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418644623 · doi:10.1075/lplp.39.3.05pel

Parity in the plural

2015· article· en· W2418644623 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Problems & Language Planning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaguenessSociologySociolinguisticsNormativePluralEpistemologyPoliticsLinguisticsPhilosophy of languagePhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The politics of language raises a number of concerns pertaining to the question of equality, particularly in the context of language policy formulation, analysis and evaluation. At the same time, however, both ‘equality’ and ‘language’ are relatively vague notions, which may be interpreted in different ways, and which therefore yield very different understandings when combined together in different circumstances and in service of different purposes. This conceptual vagueness, I argue, requires normative reflections that are public policy-oriented to engage in a more nuanced conceptual analysis in the process of formulating moral arguments on the basis of moral intuitions. I therefore map a number of possible conceptions of both ‘equality’ and ‘language’, and discuss in detail the notion of ‘complex linguistic equality’ as one example of their possible permutation. I conclude by arguing for the importance of more engaged work between political theory and sociolinguistics for the sake of advancing both theory-building and practical application.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.350 · 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