MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W280369397

Inuktitut and parliamentary terminology

2011· article· en· W280369397 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Okalik

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian parliamentary review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyLegislatureLegislationLegislative assemblyPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Public administrationStyle (visual arts)Legislative historyLawLinguisticsGeographyPoliticsArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The territory of Nunavut came into existence on April 1, 1999 when the Northwest Territories was divided. Among the structures inherited by Nunavut were a consensus-style legislature and a set of legislation, including the NWT’s Official Languages Act, a Languages Commissioner and language services reflecting the needs of the public, government and parliamentarians alike. This article looks at the use of the Inuit language in Nunavut’s Legislative Assembly including the challenge of developing terminology within the parliamentary context.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.021
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian parliamentary reviewSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207