MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W562303856 · doi:10.1075/cilt.313

Romance Linguistics 2008

2010· book· en· W562303856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karlos Arregi, Zsuzsanna Fagyal, Silvina Montrul, Annie Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSpanish Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRomanceLinguisticsRomance languagesApplied linguisticsHistoryLiteratureArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sixteen papers here united have been selected from the 38th Linguistic Symposium of the Romance Languages held in Champaign-Urbana in 2008. The papers, whose authors include both well-known researchers and younger scholars, cover a broad and truly interdisciplinary range of topics in phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and their interfaces. Among the plethora of topics examined are stress in Quebec French, vowel deletion in Tuscan Italian, bare singulars in Brazilian Portuguese, case in Romanian, and hiatus in Argentine Spanish. The volume’s novelty is to extend the traditional scope of linguistic inquiry to dynamic cognitive and societal connections between Romance and other languages, investigating, among others, how Spanish phonotactics informs psycholinguistic models of speech production, how bilinguals express subject pronouns in Chipilo contact Spanish relative to monolingual Mexican Spanish, and whether Spanish-speaking immigrants in Montreal acquire the constraints typical to natives in loanword adaptations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.035

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicSpanish Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207