Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through tracing the development and integration of theories related to global “scapes,” hybridity and mimicry, and (re‐)localization, a variety of frameworks for understanding and analyzing global linguistic flows is described. The history of these ideas within linguistic anthropology is discussed, in light of connections to a variety of key concepts (e.g. intertextuality), and various ethnographic case studies are presented to showcase the application of these theories within linguistic anthropological and sociolinguistic research. Through discussions of indigenous and minoritized language media and language usage in online spaces, as well as an in‐depth look at the mobility of popular musical genres (e.g. hip hop), speakers' agency in localizing and creating new linguistic practices and texts is highlighted. Despite an imbalance of power between “world” languages in circulation such as English versus more local languages, global linguistic flows do not necessarily result in the wholescale erasure of local forms. Rather, they may add to the dynamism and transformation of those forms in myriad vital ways, through the provision of generic frameworks as well as linguistic items that may be relocalized to convey unique local meanings.
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 | 0.018 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".