MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130820517 · doi:10.7202/038217ar

The contribution of C.C. Uhlenbeck to Eskimo-Aleut linguistics

2009· article· en· W2130820517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hein van der Voort

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsLanguage familyHistorical linguisticsAncestorComparative linguisticsAnthropologyHistoryGenealogySociologyGender studiesPhilosophyArchaeologyPhilology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C.C. Uhlenbeck was a Dutch linguist especially known for his work on comparative Indo-European linguistics, Basque and the Blackfoot Algonquian language. However, he also made some groundbreaking contributions to the comparative linguistic study of the Eskimo-Aleut family. Uhlenbeck was the first to suggest that the Eskimo language family and the Aleut language represent daughter branches of a common ancestor. Also, he was the first who approached the possible relationships between the Eskimo-Aleut language family and the Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic language families in a systematic manner in publications. His work attracted the attention of Eskimologists like Bergsland, Fortescue, Hammerich and Thalbitzer, and it put these long-distance comparative issues on the research agenda. Uhlenbeck never did any fieldwork on Eskimo-Aleut and his work is based entirely on sources written by others. His Eskimo-Aleut work is not generally known, since, being written mainly in Dutch, it is not readily accessible to most Eskimologists.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207