Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian English can be called as such on political grounds. Linguistically, however, it is included in the North American English continuum and, more precisely, shares a number of regional features with the northem diaslect of US speech. What about usage preferences among Canadian Anglophones? As in previous papers (Albu 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005) I have tried to answer this question, this time focusing on the syntactic compartment, by processing and interpreting the results of a sociolinguistic questionnaire administered in urban Ontario in 2000. The data analysed in this paper are divided into three groups: (1) verba, that is, verb phrase structures and related clause patterns; (2) nomina, that is, noun phrase structures (3) instrumenta, that is, the choice of prepositions and conjunctions in particular phrases. Just as in the spelling, pronunciation and vocabulary compartments, the "American" options are occasionally complemented by "British" preferences. In terms of subjective evaluation, the idea of a link to British English rather than American English is present with a considerable number of respondents.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".