MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110376195 · doi:10.7202/1071950ar

Labrador Inuttut Inverted Number Marking: Ongoing Questions

2019· article· en· W3110376195 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lawrence R. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes/Inuit/Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonLinguisticsPluralPrima faciePsychologyHistoryEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a fascinating and prima facie perplexing patterning in Inuttut, the Labrador dialect of Inuktitut, wherein the quite regular markers of singular and plural in verbal inflectional markers appear inverted in second person forms. We explore this linguistic problem and show two things: that progress toward a solution is facilitated by incorporating representations of linguistic intent, and also that the consideration of intent, by adding a level of data, opens the phenomenon for deeper understanding by presenting new hypotheses to be explored. Making such features available in grammatical derivations allows the systematic generation of patterns that would otherwise be impossible, thereby obviating gaps in the potential for grammatical explanation and highlighting psychologically plausible mechanisms for diachronic change. It is disadvantageous for any theory of grammatical competence to allow any phenomenon of strong grammatical patterning to remain unaccounted for. By viewing grammatical structures as the result of tool invention by individuals and groups in the linguistic past, the study of the intellectual history of linguistic innovation can potentially uncover particularly clever and insightful processes related to desiderata of cultural adhesion. This approach opens new hypotheses for the evolution of the language from the proto stage.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes/Inuit/StudiesSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207