Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a short report on a linguistics class that I taught in College for Kids at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in July 1988. The children in the class were eight children who had just finished fifth grade; they were children who were identified as gifted. The class lasted for about two hours on three consecutive mornings. The class took place on campus and the children were accompanied by their teacher, Fred Bartling. The day after the course was over I made notes about what we had done. This report is based on my notes and my memory. I might say at the outset that I started off on the first day with the misguided idea that 10-year-olds could be given a watered-down version of the sort of linguistics class that goes down well with undergraduates (it might have helped if I had read Fabb (1985) before the class). My experience on the first day of trying to interest the children in the difference between particles and prepositions ('John looked up the road'; 'John looked up the number') made it clear that the facts had at least to be presented in a different way, and a lot of my time in the next day or so was spent trying to work out linguistic activities and games that 10-year-olds would enjoy. What follows is a list of things that seemed to work (and some that didn't), organized according to topic (syntax, morphology, phonetics and phonology, and language acquisition).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".