Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the discourse patterning of two French-speaking twins in interaction with their mother evolve over a period of four years, as they grow up in the context of English-speaking Toronto? This paper describes the current phase of an ongoing research project on speech analysis, led by Professors J. Benson and W. Greaves (York University, Glendon College) and carried out by the Systemic Functional Linguistics Research Group, of which I am a member. The purpose is to study the interaction among languages or language varieties. In this phase of the project, we catalogue the video tapes of the twins speaking, which constitute our primary data, and transform them into a linguistic corpus by transcribing them in alignment with sound files, using the speech analysis tool PRAAT, a freeware program for analyzing acoustics. The next phase will consist of analyzing the twins’ speech using the systemic functional linguistic network developed by Eggins and Slade (1997) and the computer program Corpus Tool, developed by Michael O’Donnell. At this interim phase of the research project, conclusions are not yet available.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".