MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7077901478 · doi:10.48448/gs3b-jh31

Unzipping the Causality of Zipf’s Law and Other Lexical Trade-offs

2025· other· en· W7077901478 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnderline Science Inc. · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonotacticsCausality (physics)LexiconCorrelationWord (group theory)Universality (dynamical systems)Variation (astronomy)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are strong constraints on the structure of a possible lexicon. For example, the negative correlation between word frequency and length known as Zipf's law, and a negative correlation between word length and phonotactic complexity appear to hold across languages. While lexical trade-offs like these have been examined individually, it is unclear how they interact as a system. In this paper, we propose causal discovery as a method for identifying lexical biases and their interactions in a set of variables. We represent the lexicon as a causal model, and apply the Fast Causal Discovery algorithm (Spirtes et al., 1995) to identify both causal relationships between measured variables and the existence of possible unmeasured confounding variables. We apply this method to lexical data including measures of word length, frequency, phonotactic complexity, and morphological irregularity for 25 languages and find evidence of universal associations involving word length with a high likelihood of involving an unmeasured confounder, suggesting that additional variables need to be measured to determine how they are related. We also find evidence of variation across languages in relationships between the remaining variables, and suggest that given a larger dataset, causal discovery algorithms can be a useful tool in assessing the universality of lexical biases.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnderline Science Inc.Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207