MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415117642 · doi:10.1075/cilt.370.11juo

A comparative analysis of stylometry and authorship attribution in a creole and non-creole language

2025· book-chapter· en· W4415117642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Juola, Alejandro Jorge Napolitano Jawerbaum

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAuthorship Attribution and Profiling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStylometryAuthorship attributionCreole languageVariety (cybernetics)Variation (astronomy)Corpus linguisticsComputational linguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stylometry, the computational study of writing style, has proven itself for answering questions of authorship in a wide variety of languages. However, previous research has focused on non-creole languages. Our previous work presented an analysis of 100 parliamentary speeches in seselwa and showed performance far above chance. We extend this analysis with a comparable corpus of standard (Québécois) French. No advantage was shown for either language. We conclude that there is no less complexity and stylistic variation in creole languages.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicAuthorship Attribution and ProfilingFrench-language works237,207