MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Polysynthesis in the Acquisition of Inuit Languages

2017· book-chapter· en· W2903943838 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsMorphology (biology)Realization (probability)VocabularyArgument (complex analysis)NounLanguage acquisitionHistoryComputer sciencePsychologyMathematicsPhilosophyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this chapter, I begin by briefly outlining the structure of Inuit (Eskimo) languages and the challenges they present for child language development. In the bulk of the chapter, I review the existing literature on the first language, impaired, and bilingual acquisition of Inuit languages (i.e. Inuktitut and West Greenlandic) from ages 1 through 16 years. Structures covered include nursery vocabulary, word-internal derivational morphology, verbal and nominal inflectional morphology, other complex morphology, noun incorporation, passive, causative, valency alternations, argument realization, and tense and aspect. I also briefly cover aspects of language socialization, narrative acquisition, and the effects on Inuit language acquisition of increasing use of majority languages. I conclude with a summary of our knowledge so far and directions for further research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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