A market failure approach to linguistic justice
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
This paper will consider language management from the perspective of efficiency, and will set the grounds for a new approach to linguistic justice: a market failure approach. The principle of efficiency emphasises the need to satisfy individuals’ preferences in an optimal way. Applying this principle with regard to language would justify language rights in certain domains, but also justify an array of additional linguistic interventions, thus providing better collective results in terms of people’s preference satisfaction. Starting from a laissez-faire situation of total linguistic freedom, the paper demonstrates that many ‘market failures’ exist and that these prevent the coincidence of equilibrium and optimality. Due to market failures in the linguistic domain, we cannot expect free rational linguistic choices to produce optimal collective results, and linguistic freedom often becomes linguistic free-riding. Therefore, the just way to satisfy people’s linguistic preferences is not by allowing them full equal liberty to choose the language they prefer to learn, use or transmit without any constraint. In order to improve the outcomes, we can sometimes prohibit certain forms of behaviour, and also use incentives and disincentives to promote alternative, more desirable, behaviours, thus offering every individual a fair chance to realise his/her linguistic preferences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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