The Heart of the Matter: Methodological Challenges in Developing a Contemporary 257-269 Reading Programme for Monolingual Lexicography, from the Perspective of the Dictionary Unit for South African English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Abstract: This article argues the importance of the reading programme as the pivotal issue inthe lexicographic process. It is essentially a practical article which outlines strategies for developingand implementing a reading programme for monolingual lexicography. The arguments are informedby theory, together with an examination of the data-collection procedures followed by theDictionary Unit for South African English (DSAE) and a survey of current practice in major Englishdictionary units around the world, namely the Oxford English Dictionary, the Canadian OxfordDictionary, the Australian National Dictionary Centre and the New Zealand Dictionary Centre.The reading programme for the DSAE is first defined and contextualized within its mission statement.The article then explores the challenges inherent in sampling contemporary written and spokenEnglish in the South African multilingual context. It is intended to inform the DSAE's intakepolicy, in terms of the following critical issues:</p><p>— the definition of South African English,</p><p>— the monitoring and selection of print, oral and electronic sources,</p><p>— the excerpting of citations and relevant bibliographic information, and</p><p>— the recruiting and training of readers.</p><p>These interlinked aspects of the reading programme have crucial implications for the quality andauthority of the monolingual dictionary on historical principles.</p><p>Keywords: READING PROGRAMME, MONOLINGUAL DICTIONARY, HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES, CONTEMPORARY, INTAKE, CITATIONS, STRATEGIES</p><p>Opsomming: Die kern van die saak: Metodologiese uitdagings by die ontwikkelingvan 'n eietydse leesprogram vir eentalige leksikografie, uit dieperspektief van die Dictionary Unit for South African English. Hierdie artikelbepleit die belangrikheid van die leesprogram as die kernsaak in die leksikografiese proses. Dit ishoofsaaklik 'n praktiese artikel wat stategieë vir die ontwikkeling en implementering van 'n leesprogramvir eentalige leksikografie skets. Die argumente word ondersteun deur teorie, saam met 'nondersoek na die dataversamelingsprosedures wat deur die Dictionary Unit for South AfricanEnglish (DSAE) gevolg word en 'n oorsig van die huidige praktyk by belangrike Engelse woordeboekeenhedeoor die hele wêreld, naamlik die Oxford English Dictionary, die Canadian OxfordDictionary, die Australian National Dictionary Centre en die New Zealand Dictionary Centre. Dieleesprogram van die DSAE word eers omskryf en geplaas binne sy missiestelling. Die artikelondersoek dan die uitdagings verbonde aan die toetsing van eietydse geskrewe en gesproke Engelsbinne die Suid-Afrikaanse veeltalige konteks. Dit is bedoel om die DSAE se opnamebeleid te beligbetreffende die volgende kritieke sake:</p><p>— die omskrywing van Suid-Afrikaanse Engels,</p><p>— die kontrole en keuse van gedrukte, gesproke en elektroniese bronne</p><p>,— die ekserpering van sitate en tersaaklike bibliografiese inligting, en</p><p>— die werwing en opleiding van lesers.</p><p>Hierdie verbandhoudende aspekte van die leesprogram het beslissende implikasies vir die gehalteen gesaghebbendheid van die eentalige woordeboek volgens historiese beginsels.</p><p>Sleutelwoorde: LEESPROGRAM, EENTALIGE WOORDEBOEK, HISTORIESE BEGINSELS, EIETYDS, OPNAME, SITATE, STRATEGIE?</p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".