Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to appearance (e.g. nómohtsstsiinssoka anni iihtáísttsikaahkiaakio’pi ‘she singed me with the iron’), the phonotactics of Blackfoot, an Algonquian language spoken in southern Alberta and northern Montana, are highly restrictive. In this paper, I describe Blackfoot phonotactics and demonstrate that the distribution of Blackfoot phonemes may be explained with reference to sonority. The role of sonority in phonotactics is a concept which has been well-documented phonologically (Sievers 1881 et seq) and has been shown to have phonetic motivation (Parker 2002). It has been held accountable for universal preferences in syllable structure (for example, the preference for CV syllables), as well as for the sequencing of segments within and across syllables, as evidenced in generalisations such as the Sonority Sequencing Principle. Cross-linguistic study has revealed the universal applicability of the sonority scale (ibid.), a formal ranking of sound classes according to their relative sonority. In Blackfoot, reference to the traditional sonority hierarchy not only motivates the phonotactic constraints but also provides a possible explanation for several morphophonological processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".