Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last decade there has been a burgeoning interest in dialect contact (Kerswill 1994, 1996; Milroy 1997; Britain 1997; Auer & Hinskins 1996) prompted by linguists' awareness of the insights this phenomenon can provide into the processes and outcomes of language change. In particular, recent research has shown that the process of leveling may be responsible for dialects losing their local features and becoming more homogeneous, this, according to Chambers ( 1999), occurring across national boundaries as between Canada and the U.S. If, as is suggested, leveling does lead to dialect homogeneity, this might also indicate a parallel shift in the orientation of speakers away from a local to a supra-local identification. In this paper, using a variationist analysis to examine the reflexes of two phonological variables, I chart the formation of a new dialect in a contact situation. Using a language ideology model, I suggest that speakers' own comments on various aspects of group identity provide the best insight into the results of the analysis.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".