MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2549639171

A Survey of the Athabaskan Language Mattole

2015· article· en· W2549639171 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dick Grune

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage familyPhylumHistoryEncyclopediaGeographyArchaeologyLinguisticsEthnologyGenealogyGeologyPaleontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Mattole belongs to the Athabaskan language family, which is part of the Na-Dene phylum. This phylum spreads over part of the West of the North-American continent, with three separate regions of speakers: West Canada, North California and Arizona and New Mexico. Mattole was spoken in North-West California, near the mouth of the Mattole river [lit.ref. 2]. By the time it was recorded [lit.ref. 1] (1930), there were only one or two speakers left and the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1973 marks it as extinct. Other prominent Athabaskan languages are Chipewyan in Canada and Navaho and the Apache languages in Arizona and New Mexico. Mattole does not differ more from Navaho than the average British country-side dialect from Standard English; if it were not for the two thousand kilometers that separate them, they might well be considered dialects of the same language. All in all, Mattole is somewhat simpler than Navaho. If recent research is correct, the Na-Dene languages are remotely related to Chinese and arrived in America somewhere around 7000 BC.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207