MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790907235 · doi:10.5539/ells.v8n1p83

Stress in English and Arabic: A Contrastive Study

2018· article· en· W2790907235 on OpenAlex
Mohammed Jasim Betti, Warkaa Awad Ulaiwi

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic, Cultural, and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsStress (linguistics)ArabicPhenomenonContrast (vision)Similarity (geometry)Contrastive analysisComputer scienceEmphasis (telecommunications)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)PhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is descriptive which describes and compares stress in English and Arabic in order to arrive at the points of similarity and difference. This is primarily achieved by showing its degrees, types, and functions, by surveying the literature available and by contrasting it in the two compared languages, conducting a contrastive study. The study hypothesizes that there is no difference between English and Arabic in terms of degrees, types and functions of stress. The study finds out that stress as a phenomenon exists in both languages and it is not phonemic. In addition, in both languages, it is connected with strong syllables, and its primary functions of stress are emphasis and contrast.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it