Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter sets out a history of the main developments in the lexicography of English as a standard language since around 1700. In practice, this means focusing first on Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), enormously influential on English-language lexicography well into the nineteenth century, and secondly on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), similarly influential on subsequent publications, whether in its first edition (OED1, 1884–1928), its main twentieth-century Supplement, or its gradually emerging reincarnation in revised form online (OED3, 2000–). Many dictionaries play an important constitutive or subsidiary role in the story, however, ranging from the dictionaries preceding Johnson, through those for English-language learners of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (most notably Cobuild, 1987), to those of non-English varieties of the standard such as Scots, Canadian, Australian, and others. This chapter discusses dictionaries produced in the UK and (to a lesser extent) the United States, reflecting the pervasive historical and cultural influence of England and the UK on English lexicography to date.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".