Joseph Wright's English dialect dictionary and beyond : studies in late modern English dialectology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contents: Manfred Markus: Introduction to Part I: The Genesis of Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Gunnel Melchers: Jakob Jakobsen and Joseph Wright: Two contemporary dialectologists and lexicographers - Joan C. Beal: The contribution of the Rev. Joseph Hunter's Hallamshire Glossary (1829) to Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Daniela Cesiri: The excluded material in Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Christoph Praxmarer: Joseph Wright's EDD and the geographical distribution of dialects: A visual approach - Manfred Markus: Introduction to Part II: The structure of Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Gabriele Knappe: Folk etymology (antilexicalization) in Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Manfred Markus: Diminutives in English standard and dialects: A survey based on Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Alexander Onysko: Phrases, combinations and compounds in the English Dialect Dictionary as a source of conceptual metaphors and metonymies in Late Modern English dialects - Reinhard Heuberger: Retrieving pragmatic information in Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary Online: Methods, benefits and problems - Torsten Muller/Vera Stadelmann: From cock-throwing to croquet: Games and sports in Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Clive Upton: Introduction to Part III: The Continuation from Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary - Philip Durkin: The English Dialect Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary: A continuing relationship between two dictionaries - Inge Milfull/Sarah Couper: Sourcing Wright: Problems and solutions in the use of EDD citations for the purposes of OED3 - Heinrich Ramisch: Analysing present-tense verb forms in the Survey of English Dialects and the English Dialect Dictionary - Stefan Dollinger: Software from the Bank of Canadian English as an open source tool for the dialectologist: ling.surf and its features.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".