Prolonged multilingualism among the Sebuyau: An ethnography of communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis describes the Sebuyau language and seeks to explain how this small group as maintained their culture and way of speaking in the shadow of very large languages like Malay, English and Chinese.I use the ethnographic method to study this ethnic group.Specifically, I based this ethnography of communication on two texts told by twenty-four people, who all belong to the community of practice of Keluarga Church.The study is divided into two broad areas.Part of the thesis is more synchronic linguistics, and describes the lexicon, phonology and morphology of Sebuyau.The conclusion is that Sebuyau is a variety of Iban.The lexicon exhibits considerable borrowing from languages that are no longer spoken in the areasuch as Sanskrit.But most of the non-Sebuyau words are English or Malay.There are some lexicographic signs of the beginning of language shift to Malay, but the phonology shows signs that the language is being reincorporated into Iban.The other theme of the thesis is an examination of the reasons why Sebuyau has not been swallowed up by Malay or some other language.It is a more general description of the history and linguistic ecology of the area in Malaysia that is their homeland.In particular, the study shows how the linguistic ecology has helped the Sebuyau maintain their identity and way of speaking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".