Bibliographic record
Abstract
Halkomelem is a Central Salish language of the Pacific Northwest with dialects of Upriver, Downriver, and Island. Color terms are adjectival verbs in Upriver Halkomelem, used syntactically and cognitively as both verbs and adjectives. Fieldwork with Munsell chips reveals that speakers of Upriver Halkomelem use a variety of strategies to name shades of color. Galloway 1992 reported on the use of aspect inflection to name the shades; thus color term roots are inflected for stative (be red), inceptive (get red, turn red), and these can be combined with continuative aspect (being red, getting/tuming red, getting in a state of red) and even with diminutives (a little red, getting/tuming a little red). There is one augmentative affix but adverbs like ‘very’ and ‘real’ are preposed by certain speakers to express some shades. Color adjectives, with or without adverbs and affixes, may be used sentence-initially as verbs or may be preposed to nouns within noun phrases. It seems, then, that different speakers use distinct metaphorical cognitive models in creating these terms. All speakers share the metaphorical model that COLORS ARE PROCESSES. This cognitive model allows further metaphors to be applied, for example, INCREASING SATURATION & BRIGHTNESS ARE CONTINUATIVES. Another metaphorical model is seen with the diminutive: DECREASING SATURATION & BRIGHTNESS ARE DIMINISHING IN SIZE OR AMOUNT. These last two mental models are coherent with each other and, therefore, can be used together. There are also adjectives meaning ‘light’ and ‘dark’ which some speakers use with color terms, and some use two basic color terms together to express variations in hue (like blue-green in English). Investigation continues into whether there are submodels ofmodifiers used to express variations in saturation independently from those in brightness. In Upriver Halkomelem, thinking of color in terms of culturally sanctioned metaphors is a convention that exceeds mere application of linguistic form to unprocessed color perception. Communicative subtlety depends on them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".