MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095319236 · doi:10.1075/sl.20023.col

Plains Cree animacy–inanimacy hierarchy

2020· article· en· W3095319236 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

VenueStudies in Language · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsFirst Nations University of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimacyNounLinguisticsPluralHistoryHierarchyContext (archaeology)GeographyPhilosophyArchaeologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Like all Algonquian languages, Cree distributes its stock of nouns over two classes: animate and inanimate. While this distinction is firmly based on different agreement rules, and is to a large extent (but not completely) backed up by semantic differences, Cree nouns can also be put on a 4-level hierarchy scale, depending on their morphological valence with regard to whether or not they allow markers for the plural, obviative, vocative/honorific, absentative or which one of the two types of locatives. In addition, in a few recorded cases an inanimate noun may be reclassified, or “promoted”, as an animate noun, but rarely vice versa. Although this paper concentrates on Plains Cree, and examples are from that dialect unless otherwise noted, some observations are also made on (in)animacy in East Cree and in a wider Algonquian context.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.239 · 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