Bibliographic record
Abstract
07–341Al-Kufaishi, Adil (Copenhagen U, Denmark; adil@hum.kd.uk ), A pedagogic model of translating expository texts. Babel (John Benjamins) 52.1 (2006), 1–16. 07–342Anderson, Wendy (U Glasgow, UK), ‘Absolutely, totally, filled to the brim with the Famous Grouse’. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.3 (2006), 10–16. 07–343Boudreault, Patrick (California State U, Northridge, USA; patrick.boudreault@csun.edu ) & Rachel I. Mayberry, Grammatical processing in American Sign Language: Age of first-language acquisition effects in relation to syntactic structure. Language and Cognitive Processes (Routledge/Taylor&Francis) 21.5 (2006), 608–635. 07–344Charles, M. (U Oxford, UK), The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press) 27.3 (2006), 492–518. 07–345Frazier, Lyn (U Massachusetts, Amherst, USA; lyn@linguist.umass.edu ), Katy Carlson & Charles Clifton Jr., Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Elsevier) 10.6 (2006), 244–249. 07–346Goatly, Andrew (Lingnan U, Hong Kong, China), Ideology and metaphor. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.3 (2006), 25–39. 07–347Goral, Mira (City U New York, USA; mgoral@bu.edu ), Erika S. Levy, Loraine K. Obler & Eyal Cohen, Cross-language lexical connections in the mental lexicon: Evidence from a case of trilingual aphasia. Brain and Language (Elsevier) 98.2 (2006), 235–247. 07–348Hellermann J. (Portland State U, USA), Classroom interactive practices for developing L2 literacy: A microethnographic study of two beginning adult learners of English. Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press) 27.3 (2006), 377–404. 07–349Joseph, John E. (U Edinburgh, UK), Linguistic identities: Double-edged swords. Language Problems & Language Planning (John Benjamins) 30.3 (2006), 261–267. 07–350Kuo, I-Chun (Canterbury Christ Church U College, UK; ick1@cant.ac.uk ), Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal (Oxford University Press) 60.3 (2006), 213–221. 07–351McDonald, Janet L. (Louisiana State U, Baton Rouge, USA; psmcdo@lsu.edu ), Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners.Journal of Memory and Language (Elsevier) 55.3 (2006), 381–401. 07–352Mori, Junko & Makoto Hayashi (U Wisconsin-Maddison, USA), The achievement of intersubjectivity through embodied completions: A study of interactions between first and second language speakers. Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press) 27.2 (2006), 195–219. 07–353Oberlander, Jon (U Edinburgh, UK) & Alastair J. Gill, Language with character: A stratified corpus comparison of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Processes (Erlbaum) 42.3 (2006), 239–270. 07–354Rosenberger Shankar, Tara (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA), Speaking on the record: A theory of composition. Computers and Composition (Elsevier) 23.3 (2006), 374–373. 07–355Sanford, Anthony J. (U Glasgow, UK) & Arthur C. Graesser, Shallow processing and underspecification. Discourse Processes (Erlbaum) 42.2 (2006), 99–108. 07–356Sears, Christopher R. (U Calgary, Canada), Crystal R. Campbell & Stephen J. Lupker, Is there a neighborhood frequency effect in English? Evidence from reading and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance (American Psychological Association) 32.4 (2006), 1040–1062. 07–357Sebastian-Gallés, Núria (GRNC, Parc Científic Universitat de Barcelona & Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, Spain; nsebastian@ub.edu ), Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells, Ruth de Diego-Balaguer & Begoña Díaz, First- and second-language phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (MIT Press) 18.8 (2006), 1277–1291. 07–358Sebba, Mark (Lancaster U, UK), Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR. Language Problems & Language Planning (John Benjamins) 30.2 (2006), 99–125. 07–359Valdois, Sylviane (Université Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble, France) & Sonia Kandel, French- and Spanish-speaking children use different visual and motor units during spelling acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes (Routledge/Taylor & Francis) 21.5 (2006), 531–561.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.312 | 0.191 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".