MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072443094 · doi:10.1163/187740912x623389

Adstrate Influence in Sri Lanka Malay: Definiteness, Animacy and Number in Accusative Case Marking

2012· article· en· W2072443094 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language Contact · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMalayTamilDefinitenessAnimacySri lankaIndigenousHistoryIndonesianLinguisticsCreole languageGeographyEthnologySouth asia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sri Lanka Malay is a creole-like language spoken by the descendents of soldiers, exiles and slaves brought to Sri Lanka by the Dutch from Java and their possessions in the Indonesian archipelago in the 17 th and 18 th centuries and by recruits brought by the British from the Malayan Peninsula and elsewhere in the 19 th century. Various authors have noted the influence of indigenous languages on the structure of Sri Lanka Malay but disagreement has arisen over the source and mechanism. An examination of the interaction of definiteness, number, animacy and the accusative case in Sinhala, Tamil, and Sri Lanka Malay nominal inflection shows that Sri Lanka Malay aligns more closely here with Tamil than with Sinhala. The pattern of accusative case marking, in particular, can be attributed to Tamil influence. Moreover, the ubiquity of accusative case marking in Sri Lanka Malay together with its obscure origin and the absence of recent cataclysmic social events to trigger rapid linguistic change indicate that this alignment is of long standing, rather than a recent development.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.333 · 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