MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205183269 · doi:10.1075/cilt.358.11hye

Theatrical practices and grammatical standardization in eighteenth-century Britain

2022· book-chapter· en· W4205183269 on OpenAlex
James Hyett, Carol Percy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationLinguisticsArtLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter extends the discussion of second-person pronouns and of eighteenth-century language norms by examining three playwrights’ use of you was in the period before its proscription by grammarians like Robert Lowth (1762) . Our analysis corroborates historical sociolinguistic surveys by Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2002) and Laitinen (2009) that identify you was as informal/familiar before 1762. We also show that you was was salient and associated with social lowness in comedies well before it was stigmatized by prescriptivists. Finally, while acknowledging the distinctness of theatrical language, we have identified one useful general property of comedy and especially romantic comedy. The stylized opposition between comic characters (particularly lovers) can signal sociolinguistic salience, here of you was/were by 1747.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.018
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.319 · 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