MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Revitalization of Indigenous Languages through Pre-processing and Neural Machine Translation: The case of Inuktitut

2020· article· en· W3116587780 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tan Ngoc Le, Fatiha Sadat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine translationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingIndigenousPreprocessorContext (archaeology)Focus (optics)LinguisticsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous languages have been very challenging when dealing with NLP tasks and applications because of multiple reasons. These languages, in linguistic typology, are polysynthetic and highly inflected with rich morphophonemics and variable dialectal-dependent spellings; which affected studies on any NLP task in the recent years. Moreover, Indigenous languages have been considered as low-resource and/or endangered; which poses a great challenge for research related to Artificial Intelligence and its fields, such as NLP and machine learning. In this paper, we propose a study on the Inuktitut language through pre-processing and neural machine translation, in order to revitalize the language which belongs to the Inuit family, a type of polysynthetic languages spoken in Northern Canada. Our focus is concentrated on: (1) the preprocessing phase, and (2) applications on specific NLP tasks such as morphological analysis and neural machine translation, both for Indigenous languages of Canada. Our evaluations in the context of lowresource Inuktitut-English Neural Machine Translation, showed significant improvements of the proposed approach compared to the state-of-the-art.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207