MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400959998 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v14n4p117

Gender Differences in the Use of Negation Markers in Qassimi Arabic: A Sociolinguistic Analysis

2024· article· en· W4400959998 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Noorah A. Almohaimeed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationArabicLinguisticsPsychologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the use of negation markers in the Qassimi Arabic (QA), a variety of Najdi Arabic, spoken in central-north Saudi Arabia. Employing a qualitative approach, we observed the speech patterns of 28 Qassimi speakers (14 male, 14 female; ages 28–34). The local negators Muhub/Mub were used by 39% of males but only 12.4% of females. Conversely, the supralocal negator Mu was used by all females (35.6%) and a smaller portion of males (12.9%). These findings highlight gender differences in negation marker preference within the Qassim dialect. The study aims to improve communication between genders and encourage broader understanding of linguistic variation in Najdi Arabic.

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 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)0.061
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207