MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W598272799 · doi:10.1075/cilt.333

Variation within and across Romance Languages

2014· book· en· W598272799 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie‐Hélène Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2014
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)RomanceRomance languagesLinguisticsEvolutionary biologyArtBiologyLiteraturePhilosophyPhysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This volume is a selection of twenty peer-reviewed articles first presented at the 41st annual Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), held at the University of Ottawa in 2011. They are thematically linked by a broad notion of variation across languages, dialects, speakers, time, linguistic contexts, and communicative situations. Furthermore, the articles address common theoretical and empirical issues from different formal, experimental, or corpus-based perspectives. The languages analyzed belong to the main members of the Romance family, Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan, French, Ladin, Italian, Sardinian, and Romanian, and a variety of topics across a wide spectrum of linguistic subfields, from phonetics to semantics, as well as historical linguistics, bilingualism and second-language learning, is covered. By illustrating the richness and complementarity of subjects, methods, and theoretical frameworks explored within Romance linguistics, significant contributions are made to both the documentation of Romance languages and to linguistic theory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicMedieval European Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207