Bibliographic record
Abstract
For centuries now, English has been the language of villages and nations throughout the world, and it varies, we say, according to something we call ‘region’, though we could hardly come up with a vaguer term. The most familiar dictionaries of English describe a standard variety, though different regions may develop different standards over time – Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language accounts for Standard American English, while The Macquarie Dictionary does the same for Standard Australian English, and so on (for both, see Chapter 23). Some dictionaries of regional English represent a nation’s distinctive lexical features, while others represent local features, with dictionaries of every imaginable scope in between those extremes. ‘No nation is of a piece’, writes F. G. Cassidy – editor of both the Dictionary of American Regional English and the Dictionary of Jamaican English – ‘It is no accident therefore that language, which reflects conditions in the society, is nowhere all of a piece either.’ Regional dictionaries assemble non-standard pieces of English into complex pictures of regional language, history, and culture.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".