MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1027805435

What is missing in language revitalization

2013· article· en· W1027805435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucy Bell, Candace Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericanae (AECID Library) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSpiritualityLanguage revitalizationLuckIndigenous languagePrayerTraditional knowledgeHistoryApprenticeshipDocumentationSociologyLinguisticsArchaeologyComputer scienceEpistemologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When two of my grandmothers were dying, they reverted to communicating in their traditional language. There was no one at their sides who could understand their dying words. This is one of the reasons I choose to learn my language and examine at a more holistic way of language revitalization. While community learners attend language classes, use master-apprentice techniques and study language resources, we are running out of time to save our critically endangered language isolate. The handful of fluent teachers are over 80 years of age and the Haida communities on Haida Gwaii, BC in Canada and in southeast Alaska are in the race of our lifetime to ensure our language survives. We need to slow down, offer a prayer and call upon our ancient spirituality and beliefs. Haida ancestors once used ceremonies, prayers and medicines to empower their speech, songs, memories and place in this world. They called upon the spirits of Story-woman, Lady Luck and others for help. There is a great need amongst the Haida and other indigenous peoples to have a deeper understanding of indigenous epistemology, tradition and spirituality to ensure our languages survive. Through archival research, elder interviews and personal practice, I will share Haida epistemology as well as the ancient traditions that can hep to revitalize our dying language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.027
Scholarly communication0.0140.034
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.388
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericanae (AECID Library)Same topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207