MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488997318 · doi:10.1080/00083968.2014.922274

Mobility in the Hausa language

2014· article· fr· W1488997318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHausaLiteral and figurative languageLinguisticsLiteral (mathematical logic)VerbLanguages of AfricaSociologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article looks at how mobility is expressed in the Hausa language. The Hausa are a sedentary people in West Africa but mobility nonetheless still has an important place in their culture. The article begins with a description of figurative terms, whereby it is argued that such terms show how a sedentary culture regards various kinds of mobility. Following this, two regular forms of the Hausa verb are described that indicate direction to or from the speaker; this part is completed by a historical description of the verbs “come”, “go” and so on in Hausa and related languages, indicating that the latter or their “ancestors” may not have explicitly shown direction in the distant past. The question is raised as to whether, in the past, other verbs (for instance, verbs relating to migration) may also not have indicated direction; a possible cultural explanation is suggested. The final part of the article starts with a description of Hausa-speaking migrants in Hamburg and looks at various words used to refer to mobility, focusing on migration. This section concludes by showing that words and phrases referring to mobility can be literal (or lexical), implicit or figurative.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africainesSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207