MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133243346 · doi:10.7202/013942ar

Inupiaq writing and international Inuit relations

2006· article· en· W2133243346 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lawrence D. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousVitalityReading (process)LinguisticsIndigenous languageWriting systemThe arcticArcticCultural exchangeHistoryGeographyEthnologyOceanographyEcologyBiologyPhilosophyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language shift in Alaska threatens to replace Inupiaq, and other indigenous languages, with English unless the conditions that create the shift are reversed. The vitality of West Greenlandic and Inuktitut in the Eastern Arctic can exert a positive influence on the west if Inuit groups share published materials and increase international communication in their own language. Congruent writing systems are crucial to the process of reading what other Inuit write. A comparison of the orthographies used for Alaskan Inupiaq and West Greenlandic shows how differing systems can complicate international written exchange.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207