<b>Papers of the thirty-fourth Algonquian Conference</b> . Ed. by H. C. Wolfart. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Linguistics Department, 2003. Pp. 399. ISSN 00315671.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Papers of the thirty-fourth Algonquian Conference ed. by H. C. Wolfart Thomas R. Wier Papers of the thirty-fourth Algonquian Conference. Ed. by H. C. Wolfart. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Linguistics Department, 2003. Pp. 399. ISSN 00315671. The Algonquian Conference is an international conference held every year alternating between the [End Page 234] United States and Canada. The conference brings together scholars whose work touches on Algonquian tribal cultures and languages. This volume contains papers from twenty-two of the more than sixty presentations made at the 2002 meeting, with an index listing the presentations made but not included here. In terms of content, the book is about equally divided between more anthropologically and more linguistically oriented papers, with a strong descriptive flavor to the latter. It also has a relatively broad approach, including the following languages and/or dialects discussed at some length: Algonquin-Ojibwe, Chimariko (Hokan), all varieties of Cree, Karuk (Hokan), Kickapoo, Mascouten, Menominee, Meskwaki (or Fox), Mi’kmaq, Montagnais, Naskapi, Sauk, and Yurok (related to Algonquian languages through Algic). In general, this volume should prove useful to a wide range of scholars, whether from formalist, typological, or functionalist perspectives, as all such views are represented. After the introductory material, the following contributors and works are included: George F. Aubin, ‘The Algonquin-French manuscript ASSM 104 (1661): Miscellanea’; Lisa Conathan and Esther Wood, ‘Repetitive reduplication in Yurok and Karuk: Semantic effects of contact’; Clare Cook, ‘A semantic classification of Menominee preverbs’; Alan Corbiere, ‘Exploring historical literacy in Manitoulin Island Ojibwe’; Amy Dahlstrom, ‘Owls and cannibals revisited: Traces of Windigo features in Meskwaki texts’; Regna Darnell, ‘Algonquian perspectives on social cohesion in Canadian society’; James L. Fidelholtz, ‘Contraction in Mi’kmaq verbs and its orthographical implications’; Inge Genee, ‘An Indo-Europeanist on the prairies: C. C. Uhlenbeck’s work on Algonquian and Indo-European’; Ives Goddard, ‘Heckewelder’s 1792 vocabulary from Ohio: A possible attestation of Mascouten’; Stephanie Inglis, ‘The deferential evidential in Mi’kmaq’; Marie-Odile Junker, ‘Demonstratives in East Cree’; Monica Macaulay, ‘Negation, dubitatives and mirativity in Menominee’; Allan K. McDougall and Lisa Philips Valentine, ‘Treaty 29: Why Moore became less’; Cath Oberholtzer, ‘The Dorothy Grant collections: Granting an insight into Cree material culture’; David H. Pentland, ‘The Missinipi dialect of Cree’; Simone Poliandri, ‘Mi’kmaq people and tradition: Indian brook lobster fishing in St. Mary’s Bay, Nova Scotia’; Richard J. Preston, ‘Crees and Algonquins at “The Front”: More on twentieth-century transformations’; Christine Schreyer, ‘Travel routes of the Chapleau Cree: An ethnohistorical study’; Nicholas N. Smith, ‘Creating new relations to improve relations: Strangers as Wabanaki chiefs’; Bonnie Swierzbin, ‘Stress in border lakes Ojibwe’; Lisa Philips Valentine and Allan K. McDougall, ‘The discourse of British and US treaties in the Old Northwest, 1790–1843’; Willard Walker, ‘George Soctomah’s hat’. Thomas R. Wier University of Chicago Copyright © 2007 Linguistic Society of America
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.260 | 0.115 |
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".