Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chapters in this book represent the theme of “bridges” – bridging research approaches and directions across languages, methodologies and disciplines. Alongside descriptive and theoretical studies, the contributions present experimental studies addressing issues in syntax, phonetics-phonology and sociolinguistics. And alongside investigations of linguistic phenomena in standard Romance language varieties, other investigations address less well-known and studied, minority and endangered varieties (e.g., Quebec French, Brazilian Portuguese, Romanian, Galician, Catalan and Palenquero) from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Romance languages in contact with other languages and bilingualism, now also integral aspects of the field, are reflected in this volume as well, including less well-known cases of contemporary contact of Serbian with Romanian, and earlier contact of African languages with Spanish and Portuguese. This volume thus continues the decades long tradition of the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages of embracing cutting-edge developments in the field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it