That which survives? Relatives in written and formal spoken Canadian English
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) a. …if there's one man on earth that ought to be paid on a preference, it's the man who prints a newspaper. [Macleans/1906/a] b. I'm pleased to be part of a government which is rebuilding acute care capacity […] a government that's moving forward with an 8.1 % increase in the number of acute care beds. [Hansard/2006/x] c. The more money that came in […] the more money Ø went out in advertising. [Macleans/1906/a] This study focuses on cross-register differences in variation and change. Restrictive relative clauses were extracted from two Canadian English registers, Maclean’s magazine (N=357) and Ontario Hansard parliamentary transcripts (N=390) spanning 1906–2006. Following quantitative variationist methodology, tokens have been coded for a variety of previously attested factors conditioning variant choice, including function (i.e. subject, object) and type of antecedent. The Canadian English results are consistent with Ball’s (1996: 249) findings for standardized British and American English: which, once favoured over that for non-human antecedents in subject relatives, has begun to lose ground to that for this function in the 20 th
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".