Towards a General-Purpose Linguistic Annotation Backend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language documentation is inherently a time-intensive process; transcription, glossing, and corpus management consume a significant portion of documentary linguists' work. Advances in natural language processing can help to accelerate this work, using the linguists' past decisions as training material, but questions remain about how to prioritize human involvement. In this extended abstract, we describe the beginnings of a new project that will attempt to ease this language documentation process through the use of natural language processing (NLP) technology. It is based on (1) methods to adapt NLP tools to new languages, based on recent advances in massively multilingual neural networks, and (2) backend APIs and interfaces that allow linguists to upload their data. We then describe our current progress on two fronts: automatic phoneme transcription, and glossing. Finally, we briefly describe our future directions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.039 |
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".