MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132608588

An Analysis of the Discourse Function of Saulteaux/mi-/ As Exemplified In A Traditional Cote First Nation Teaching Text

2012· dissertation· en· W2132608588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorena Lynn Cote

Bibliographic record

VenueoURspace (University of Regina) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunction (biology)Discourse analysisLinguisticsSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis has a three-fold purpose. First it presents a Saulteaux narrative collected from a Saskatchewan reserve, Cote First Nation, transcribed, translated and analyzed linguistically. Saulteaux, the Plains dialect of Ojibwe, is spoken in the southern half of Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. The dialect studied in this thesis is the dialect that is spoken in the Kamsack area. Second, the thesis focuses on the use and function of the discourse particle /mi-/ in Saulteaux text structure. Following an introduction to the main thesis topic, a cross-dialectal survey of this discourse particle in Ojibwe, both its morphosyntactic form and word order, sets the background for a discussion of the form, function and occurrence of /mi-/ in the Saulteaux dialect of Cote First Nation. Third, the linguistic analysis is followed by a lesson plan and discussion of the means and importance for teaching this and other discourse particles and structures of the Saulteaux language in its basic communicative context. This is provided specifically for speakers of Saulteaux and others interested in teaching and preserving the language. This thesis will provide materials that can be utilized in teaching both children and adults the Saulteaux language along with the history, beliefs, traditions and customs of the Saulteaux people through traditional narratives.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueoURspace (University of Regina)Same topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207