Toponymies of lesser-used languages in the North: Issues of socio-linguistic conditions among Inuit and Sámi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both Inuit and Sámi have experienced the expansion of colonial state systems and immigrant populations from the south into their territories in Arctic Canada and northernmost Europe respectively. These historical processes have resulted, among other socio-economic conditions, in the superposition and often displacement of their aboriginal toponymy by external interests introducing other languages and place names. In the introduction this paper discusses the socio-linguistic conditions of aboriginal languages in Canada and in Europe. Both situations differ with regard to the legal protection of lesser-used, minority or aboriginal languages. In Europe the linguistic rights of minorities or aboriginal peoples are protected under conventions and by laws on the international and national level. In fact, the framework of the European Union has enhanced the position of languages in general. In the Canadian confederation, with English and French as official languages, specific legal provisions for aboriginal languages exist at the provincial and territorial levels. Still, the levels of protection are considerably weaker for these languages. As case studies the socio-linguistic conditions among the Inuit and Sámi are analyzed by focusing on the maintenance and development of their aboriginal toponymy as cultural and linguistic heritage and expression of human environmental relations. The paper explains recent practical efforts by both Inuit and Sámi to counteract the process of linguistic displacement by developing programs to enhance the development of their integral place name systems. Both Inuit and Sámi institutions have established programs to record and document their oral and historical toponymy, using modern technologies to produce maps and gazetteers. These programs are presented and discussed in the light of cultural self-determination and human and linguistic rights. In conclusion, the question is discussed if communities of lesser-used languages are able to maintain the functional space needed for the security of their languages within a multicultural and multilingual context.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".