Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nicolae Pavliuc and Ion Robciuc. Ukrains'ki hovory Rumunii: Dialektni teksty. Edmonton, L'viv, New York, Toronto: Instytut ukrainoznavstva im. I. Krypiakevycha NANU, 2003. xvi, 784 pp. $54.95, cloth.The work under review is not a study or description of Ukrainian dialects spoken in Romania but rather a collection of texts recorded in those areas of Romania where Ukrainian is spoken. It would have been preferable if this information had been cited in the title itself and not on the inside flyleaf. Also preferable because more accurate would have been to use the term hovirky Rumunii. Since it is now long established practice to distinguish hovir (a major dialect grouping) vs hovirka (a subdialect within a hovir). This is the terminology applied in the massive three-volume Atlas ukrajins'koi movy (1984, 1988, 2001) and is standard usage in all Ukrainian studies. The authors themselves return to this distinction in almost every instance throughout the text (flyleaf no. 3, pp. i, x, 102-3, 123, etc.). There is no question or controversy as to the origin of Ukrainian dialects in Romania. They do not in any sense constitute some grouping of late Proto-Slavic origin (or Early Proto-Ukrainian) as do the Northern vs Southwestern dialects, thus, termed hovory in modern Ukrainian dialectology. All the Ukrainian dialects in Romania are definitely subdialects, this is, hovirky of well identified dialects immediately to the north. Hutsul, Bukovynian and Transcarpathian-type dialects are found directly south of their counterparts within the modern Ukrainian Republic. The dialects of Dobrogea are refugee settlements resulting from the destruction of Zaporiz'ka Sich, 1775, whereas the villages in the Banat are the result of migrant labour from Transcarpathia at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries (pp. 724, 741 ). Although subdialects are later divisions of a major dialect group, they may retain very archaic features.Out of 784+xvi pp., pp. 105-632 (ca 65% of the entire work) contain the texts already mentioned. They come from 32 settlements, the names of which are cited in both the local Ukrainian pronunciation and in the official Romanian form. In each instance, the name and age of the informant are given, and there is usually more than one informant per village. Only 7 settlements record one informant each; one has as many as 6 (see pp. 74951 ). The narrative of each informant is broken down into subject headings such as boyhood years; military service; household management; village history; haying season; ploughing; parts of a scythe, plough or wagon; birds and animals both domestic and wild; cooking and preparing food; clothing; celebration from the village vechlrnytsi to Christmas and Easter rituals; baptism and weddings; growing and pickling of cabbage and/or cucumbers; spring work before seeding; whitewashing homes; local legends; forestry; how to butcher a swine, and a few more. Each text is transcribed into an easy-to-read type of Cyrillic IPA, the symbols of which are accurately defined (pp. 10-14). This very same notational system is used when describing the phonology, foreign influences, morphology and syntax of each group (pp. 27-107). These pages (in Ukrainian) are the only portions of the work which can be considered a dialectal study. The same data are then concisely summarized in English (pp. 725-732), in Romanian (pp. 733-740) and again in Ukrainian (pp. 741-748). The majority of the texts were recorded in 1963-5, one in 1962, one in 1974 and one in 1991.The bibliography lists 81 items, 20 of which are in Romanian, 10 in Russian, 3 in English, one in German and all the rest are in Ukrainian.A very interesting and necessary part of this work is the Dictionary of the Dialectal Texts (pp. 633-718). It contains those lexical items which the average speaker of modern standard Ukrainian would not recognize. This includes, of course, the numerous borrowings from Romanian and to a lesser degree from Hungarian in the Transcarpathian dialects. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".