âSlowly, slowly said the jaguarâ: Giving collaborations time to develop
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Language documentation has become increasingly collaborative over the last decade (Benedicto and Mayangna Yulbarangyang Balna 2007; Czaykowska-Higgins 2009; Rice 2006 and 2011; Grenoble and Furbee (eds.) 2010; inter alia). However, collaborations have become almost a condition for research endeavors (cf. Dwyer 2010 which considers that non-collaborative linguistic research is unethical). \n \n This paper is motivated by what I consider to be insufficient discussion about the conditions needed in order to develop collaborations of value to all involved. The focus is on whether a researcher might have sufficient knowledge about a language and has had the time to develop a strong enough rapport with members of the relevant community in order to effectively contribute towards a meaningful collaboration by the time s/he is to engage in one. \n \n I describe the history of my interaction with speakers of Isthus Zapotec (Otomanguean) from La Ventosa, Oaxaca, Mexico where I began lexicographic documentation as a graduate student in 2002. A fledgling collaboration began to emerge in 2009 and only solidified in 2013 through a large-scale, one-year effort to document the local flora and the lexicon and knowledge associated with it. The collaboration was only possible when the following conditions were met: (a) having sufficient knowledge of the language to be able to earn the respect and acceptance of highly knowledgeable community members of social prominence; (b) having sufficient sociolinguistic and cultural knowledge as to be able to identify opportunities for collaboration; and (c) be in a position to secure the funding to sustain the collaboration long-term. The collaboration that emerged has developed into a project grounded on the notion of retention ârather than returnâ of research results in the community through the development of a one-year language, knowledge and nature conservation program with increased community ownership and views towards long-term sustainability. \n \n This case study is described in detail to explain that a forced collaboration in the early stages of the research would have been unlikely to yield results as favorable as those that have emerged overtime. In fact, had an early âand forcedâ collaboration been dissatisfactory to the community members involved, future work could have been at risk. As such, I advocate for allowing researchers the time to develop such collaborations and considering collaborations as a goal of linguistic research rather than a condition for it. \n \n References\n \n Benedicto, Elena and Mayangna Yulbarangyang Balna. 2007. A Model of Participatory Action Research: the Mayangna Linguistsâ Team of Nicaragua. In Proceedings of the XI FEL Conference on âWorking Together for Endangered Languages - Research Challenges and Social Impacts,â29â35. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: SKET, University of Malaya and Foundation for Endangered Languages.\n \n Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian indigenous communities. Language Documentation & Conservation 3(1), 15â50.\n \n Dwyer, Arienne M. 2010. Models of successful collaboration. In Lenore A. Grenoble and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.) Language documentation: Practice and values, 193-212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.\n \n Grenoble, Leonore A. and N. Louanna Furbee (eds.) 2010. Language Documentation: Practice and values. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.\n \n Rice, Keren. 2011. Documentary Linguistics and Community Relations. Language Documentation & Conservation. 5, 187â207.\n \n ----- 2006. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: An overview. Journal of Academic Ethics 4.4, 123â55.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,069 | 0,012 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».