Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research addresses the subject of Secwepemcésk̓e, Secwépemc personal names and naming, in order to increase knowledge about our traditional names, and help to revitalize the use of Secwepemctsín names as an important domain in the use and knowledge of our language. It is a contribution to the overall revitalization of our endangered language. To recover Secwépemc traditional names that our ancestors from Skítsestn and Tk̓emlúps were given during the 19th and early 20th centuries, I worked with archival records such as Baptisms 1867-1882 and Marriages 1873-1874 from the Kamloops Catholic Diocese; the 1881 Canada Census (Yale Division); the 1877-1878 Joint Reserve Commission Census; and early band lists from the 1920s. In focus group sessions and interviews, I discussed these with a group of Secwepemctsín speaking Elders, mainly from Skítsestn, who provided translations, correct pronunciations, the meaning and context of names, and cultural background information. The information from these sessions, a literature review of previous ethnographic writings and analyses of names by ethnographer James Teit, and research completed by Drs. Marianne and Ronald Ignace all combined to provide a comprehensive examination of Secwépemc names and practices of name-giving. In addition, these works, combined with the focus group sessions with Elders, revealed various categories of Secwepemc names, including ancestral names that derive from spirit-guardian quests (étsxem) but were then passed down to keep the memory of ancestors alive, as well as nick-names that refer to characteristics of a person, and names that directly name the guardian spirit of a person. To enable better understanding of the linguistic structure of Secwepemcésk̓e, I provide a linguistic morpheme gloss of names across these categories, in the hope that this will enable new generations of Secwépemc to engage in naming practices true to the practices and protocols of our ancestors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".