Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phonetic production bias is the external force most commonly invoked in computational models of sound change, despite the fact that it is not responsible for all, or even most, sound changes. Furthermore, the existence of production bias alone cannot account for how changes do or do not propagate throughout a speech community. While many other factors have been invoked by (socio)phoneticians, including but not limited to contact (between subpopulations) and differences in social evaluation (of variants, groups, or individuals), these are not typically modeled in computational simulations of sound change. In this paper, we consider whether production biases have a unique dynamics in terms of how they impact the population-level spread of change in a setting where agents learn from multiple teachers. We show that, while the dynamics conditioned by production bias are not unique, it is not the case that all perturbing forces have the same dynamics: in particular, if social weight is a function of individual teachers and the correlation between a teacher's social weight and the extent to which they realize a production bias is weak, change is unlikely to propagate. Nevertheless, it remains the case that changes initiated from different sources may display a similar dynamics. A more nuanced understanding of how population structure interacts with individual biases can thus provide a (partial) solution to the `non-phonologization problem'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".