MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165747562 · doi:10.35757/kis.2010.54.2.9

Czy możliwa jest sprawiedliwość językowa?

2010· article· en· W3165747562 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKultura i Społeczeństwo · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurosQuarter (Canadian coin)InjusticeState (computer science)Political scienceHumanitiesEconomic JusticeLinguisticsEuropean unionSociologyPhilosophyEconomic historyEconomyLawHistoryEconomicsInternational tradeMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author considers the question of who has power in the globalizing world over the “international” language, what benefits do they derive from that, who profits, who loses? According to the calculations of François Grin of the University of Geneva, because of the domination of the English language in the European Union, Great Britain gains annually 17 milliard euros. For comparison, the whole budget for higher education in Poland in 2009 was 15 milliard zloties, that is one quarter of that sum. Linguistic relationships, including those in Europe are a clear example of injustice as it favours native English speakers. As a result, are language and culture categories of social justice, the first principle of a modern state? Why not consider the development of a type of Esperanto?

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.295 · 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