Non-Standard Typography Use Over Time: Signs of a Lack of Literacy or Symbolic Capital?
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
New technologies have provoked a debate regarding the role of non-standard typography (e.g. !!!, :-*). Some contend that new technologies undermine literacy while others state that new technologies provide new spaces for expressive writing and signal a form of symbolic capital. While previous research has primarily focused on age and gender to account for non-standard typography, we analyze socio-economic variables – education and income level and the use of NST over time. This study entertains these two competing hypotheses by analyzing non-standard typography in text message exchanges over three and a half months in an underprivileged population: people living in an urban public housing. Data reveal that, within this sample, use of NST increased over time and participants with higher education levels were more likely to use non-standard typography than less educated counterparts. Experience with texting was found to mediate this effect. Findings support a symbolic capital hypothesis of non-standard typography use, suggesting NST is not associated with stigmatizing lack of knowledge or literacy, but rather may signal the knowledge of discourse norms ascribed to texting in a community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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