Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most Indigenous language revitalization programs in Canada currently emphasize spoken language. However, virtually no research has been done on the role of pronunciation in the context of language revitalization. This study set out to gain an understanding of attitudes around pronunciation in the SENĆOŦEN-speaking community, in order to determine what role pronunciation should play in language revitalization and how best to strike a balance between remaining faithful to the Elders’ ways of speaking and allowing the language to change as new generations become fluent. The survey clearly showed that pronunciation is very important to the SENĆOŦEN language community, as a means of supporting communication as well as for cultural and social reasons. Several specific areas of concern came up with respect to pronunciation, as did more general challenges to learning SENĆOŦEN. Addressing pronunciation challenges involves two broad strategies: raising awareness about the types of variation considered acceptable in the SENĆOŦEN-speaking community, and addressing the types of variation that can be corrected with appropriate support. These views will lay the foundation for future pronunciation-related work on SENĆOŦEN, facilitating ongoing collaborative projects between community-based teachers and learners and university-based linguists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".