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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reviews recent research on the cross‐linguistic comparison of wordhood domains. A prominent solution to misalignments in wordhood domains is to distinguish between grammatical (morphosyntactic, morphological) words and phonological (prosodic) words. Recent studies reveal problems with this solution insofar as it is meant to serve as a basis for cross‐linguistic comparison. Language‐internal divergences within morphosyntactic domains and the phonological domains are not straightforwardly handled by the grammatical‐phonological word distinction. Moreover, cross‐linguistic variation in the motivation for these constituents is such that it is not clear that the grammatical/phonological word of one language is comparable to that of the next. Recent descriptive and typological studies seek to overcome these problems by questioning some of the methodological and conceptual assumptions underlying the concept of a word and the interpretation of wordhood diagnostics.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 it