MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413523715 · doi:10.1080/17597536.2025.2535223

The Linguistic Society of America and the Linguistic Circle of New York: colleagues or rivals — or both?

2025· article· en· W4413523715 on OpenAlexaff
Frederick J. Newmeyer

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage & History · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsLinguistic changeSociologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper raises questions around the formation of the Linguistic Circle of New York in 1943. To what extent was its formation intended to be a direct challenge to the Linguistic Society of America? And to what extent did the LSA see the LCNY as a threat to its hegemony within American linguistics? There are no clear-cut answers to these questions. The LSA officially welcomed the formation of the LCNY and its journal, while individual members of both organisations saw conflicting goals and interests.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.023
Scholarly communication0.0180.026
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage & HistorySame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207