MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132863736 · doi:10.1093/jss/fgaa040

A First Description of Arabic on The South Coast of Iran: The Arabic Dialect of Bandar Moqām, Hormozgan

2020· article· en· W3132863736 on OpenAlexaff
Bettina Leitner, Erik Anonby, Mortaza Taheri-Ardali, Dina El Zarka, Ali Moqami

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Semitic Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicPhonologyLinguisticsIslamLexiconGeographyMiddle EastAncient historyHistoryArchaeologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arabic has been spoken as a mother tongue in Iran since pre-Islamic times, but a number of the Arabic dialect groups scattered across the country have not been documented. In this study, we provide a first account of Arabic on Iran's southern coast, with a description of the dialect of Bandar Moqām in western Hormozgan Province. Using the Atlas of the Languages of Iran (ALI) linguistic data questionnaire as well as supplementary elicitation and oral texts, we have documented salient elements of its lexicon, phonology and morphosyntax. Our analysis confirms that Bandar Moqām Arabic fits into the wider Gulf Arabic dialect area, yet is internally heterogenous. On the one hand, it shares many features with the regionally dominant ‘Bedouin’ type Gulf Arabic koine, but it also aligns with distinctive structures—both retentions and innovations—in the more ancient ‘Sedentary’ Gulf dialects that originated in southern Arabia. Further, it exhibits a series of structures in common with Mesopotamian Arabic and its descendants that reached as far as Central Asia during the Arab con-quest of greater Persia and are still spoken there today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.122 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Semitic StudiesSame topicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207