MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091991243 · doi:10.1075/tsl.129.02bru

The loss of affixation in Cham

2020· book-chapter· en· W3091991243 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTypological studies in language · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chamic languages have been spoken in Central Vietnam since about 600 AD. While Classical Cham (9th–15th centuries), had already lost a significant proportion of its Austronesian affixation, it also borrowed new affixes from Mon-Khmer. Modern Cham (16th–19th centuries) underwent another wave of reduction that led to a largely monosyllabic and affixless Colloquial Eastern Cham (20th–21st centuries). In this paper I first look at representative Classical Cham inscriptions, establishing the extent to which they exhibit a reduction of affixation, and discussing possible contact scenarios that may have led to this reduction. I then assess the prevalence of affixation in Modern Cham manuscripts and in Colloquial Eastern Cham, and argue that the role Vietnamese played in Cham monosyllabisation must have been more indirect than previously assumed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.219 · 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