The Written Questionnaire in Social Dialectology
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
Methods of linguistic data collection are among the most central aspects in empirical linguistics. While written questionnaires have only played a minor role in the field of social dialectology, the study of regional and social variation, the last decade has seen a methodological revival. This book is the first monograph-length account on written questionnaires in more than 60 years. It reconnects – for the newcomer and the more seasoned empirical linguist alike – the older questionnaire tradition, last given serious treatment in the 1950s, with the more recent instantiations, reincarnations and new developments in an up-to-date, near-comprehensive account. A disciplinary history of the method sets the scene for a discussion of essential theoretical aspects in dialectology and sociolinguistics. The book is rounded off by a step-by-step practical guide – from study idea to data analysis and statistics – that includes hands-on sections on Excel and the statistical suite R for the novice. This book has a companion website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/impact.40.website
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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