Albanskij Toskskij Govor Sela Leshnja (Kraina Skrapar)/Albanskij Gegskij Govor Sela Myxurr (Kraina Dibyr)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dzheljal' Jully and Andrej N Sobolev. Albanskij toskskij govor sela Leshnja (kraina Skrapar). Sintaksis, Leksika, Etnolingvistika, Teksty. Materialen zum Siidosteuropasprachatlas, Band 2. Marburg an der Lahn: Biblion Verlag, 2002. 504 pp. Audio CD. euro78,00, cloth.Dzheljal' Jully and Andrej N Sobolev. Albanskij gegskij govor sela Myxurr (kraina Dibyr). Sintaksis, Leksika, Etnolingvistika, Teksty. Materialen zum Sudosteuropasprachatlas, Band 3. Munchen: Biblion Verlag, 2003. 540 pp. Audio CD. euro78,00, cloth.The two studies under review stem from a longitudinal project titled Kleiner Balkansprachatlas / Malyj dialektologicheskij atlas balkanskich jazykov which seeks to provide a comprehensive description of the main Balkan dialects within the linguistic area south of the Danube. The project is carried out by Philipps University (Marburg, Germany) and Sankt Petersburg State University (Russia) in collaboration with partners from the Balkans. This important scholarly enterprise has been addressing Albanian, Aromunian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Macedonian, and Serbian dialects. More information about the project is available at: http://staff-www.uni-marburg.de/~sobolev/kbsa/index.html. The present two books appeared following the first monograph in the series devoted to the Bulgarian dialect of Shiroka Laka published in 2001. Their appearance offers a testimony to the continued growth of the entire project and opens the possibility to reflect on the general format and achievements of this important investigation.The entire project is rooted within a well-defined methodological framework, with morphosyntactic and lexical questionnaires published in the 1990s and previously applied on other points of data collection within the project. Methodologically, the project follows general lines of contemporary Slavic and Balkans dialectology (as applied in, for example Obsheslavjanskij lingvisticheskij atlas). Additionally it comes out from under Nikita llich Tolstoj's overcoat in its emphasised concern for ethnolinguistic issues. As is usually the case in this kind of dialectology, the data was collected in a remote region from the informants with low educational background using a previously defined set of items from morphosyntactic, lexical, and ethnolinguistic questionnaires. Standard Albanian was often used as a metalanguage in collecting dialectological material. The investigators used a series of data collection techniques (direct questions from the meaning to the lexeme and from the lexeme to the meaning, observation, etc.). The collected material is laid out in both studies as follows:The Introduction comprises general information about the village, the informants, methodology as well as characteristic phonetic and morphological features of the local dialect under investigation. It is followed by the main body of dialectological material presented in the next three chapters.The second chapter, Syntax, encompasses fifteen subject-matter areas. The initial six sections address syntactic properties of the major parts of speech (noun, pronoun, adjective, number, adverb, verb). The following three sections treat noun, adjective, and quantitative phrases respectively. The tenth section treats the prepositions; the eleventh is devoted to the conjunctions. The final four subject-matter areas comprise syntactic material (structure of the simple sentence, existential and possessive sentences, sentence modes, and complex sentence).The third chapter, the Lexicon, addresses four major subject-matter areas (nature, man, work, and food). …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".