MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100278136 · doi:10.7202/013937ar

History of the Naukan Yupik Eskimo dictionary with implications for a future Siberian Yupik dictionary

2006· article· en· W2100278136 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven A. Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthographyLinguisticsHistoryAlphabetBilingual dictionary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Naukan is a Yupik Eskimo language spoken now by only a few people on the Russian side of the Bering Strait, but with strong Alaskan affinities. Naukan speaker Dobrieva of Lavrentiya, linguist Golovko of St. Petersburg, and linguists Jacobson and Krauss of Fairbanks have compiled a Naukan dictionary in two parallel volumes: Naukan in a latin-letter orthography to English, and Naukan in the modified Cyrillic alphabet used for Chukotkan Eskimo languages to Russian. It was both appropriate and beneficial that this project involved people from Alaska, European Russia, and Chukotka. The dictionary was recently published by the Alaska Native Language Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The Naukan dictionary in two parallel volumes can serve as a model for a new dictionary of (Central) Siberian Yupik, a language spoken, at least ancestrally, by roughly equal numbers on St. Lawrence Island Alaska and in the New Chaplino-Sirenik area of Chukotka, Russia. Such a dictionary could help to reinvigorate that language and allow it better to serve as a bridge between the two halves of a single people and culture divided only in recent decades by a boundary not of their own making.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicLinguistics and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207