An analysis of the Phonology of the Dukhobor dialect
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study endeavors to provide a descriptive analysis of the phonology of the Dukhobor Dialect and to introduce some of the main features of its inflectional system. The description is drawn against the background of standard Russian of which Dukhobor speech is unquestionably a dialect. Several older generation Dukhobors living in Grand Forks, British Columbia, served as the chief informants. Following a brief introductory chapter regarding the geographical and linguistic contacts of the Dukhobors during their short history, the main body of the text deals with the phonology of their language. Each phoneme is described as articulated, established by minimal pairs and noteworthy variations from the Russian phonological pattern are given. The study is basically one of segmental phonemes. The Dialect's phonemic inventory includes five stressed vowels /a, o, u, i, e/ and three unstressed vowels /a, u, i/. Only in unstressed positions are deviations from the Russian pattern evident. There is a tendency toward moderate jakan’e. Thirty-five consonants comprise the remainder of the list of phonemes: /p, p’ b, b’, t, t’, d, d’, k, k’, m, m’, n, n’, l, l', r, r’, s, s’, ss, z, z’ š, šš, ž, žž, x, h, c, č,ǰ, w, w’, j/. The principal allophones are [i, v, v’, f, f’, g, g’, x’,h’]. A consideration of the behavior of phonemes in word contraction and cluster reduction is included. Wherever it is apparent, the influence of Canadian English is indicated. A brief note on stress completes the main text and an appendix provides a short summary of substantive and verb inflections.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it