MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Documentation, Linguistic Typology, and Formal Grammar

2018· reference-entry· en· W2913457875 on OpenAlexaff
Keren Rice

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyLinguisticsDocumentationGrammarLinguistic typologyComputer scienceFormal grammarNatural language processingSociologyProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter addresses the relationship between language documentation and linguistic theory, focusing on linguistic typology and formal grammar, with particular attention to the understanding of linguistic diversity. It reviews the goals of documentation and of the theories under consideration, and outlines the types of data considered in documentation as well as preferred data types in the two theoretical perspectives. It concludes that, while the questions and preferred types of data are different in linguistic typology and formal grammar, nevertheless language documentation has made strong contributions to each of them, and each of them has made strong contributions to language documentation.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0100.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207