MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039582447 · doi:10.1075/cilt.351.03ano

A multi-dimensional approach to classification of Iran’s languages

2020· book-chapter· en· W3039582447 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Anonby, Amos Hayes, Robert Oikle

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and cultural evolution
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The enterprise of classification is central to the construction of a language atlas, particularly in the Iranian context. While existing two-dimensional models of language classification are useful as a starting point, they are ultimately incapable of handling some of the important complexities found in Iran’s language situation. To address these issues, we propose a multi-dimensional “language relation web”, based on a force-directed multigraph visualization, as an alternative model for expressing connections between language varieties. This architecture allows for differentiation and representation of multiple types of linkages, each of which constitutes a dimension of classification, in a single visualization: shared genealogical inheritance, structural similarity through contact, and association through ethnic identification. The resulting model provides new insights into the classification of Iran’s languages and raises questions and prospects for the broader classification process.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicLanguage and cultural evolutionFrench-language works237,207