The Contributions to the Loanwords in Karaim
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Turkic language has adopted hundreds of thousands of Turkish words into its vocabulary throughout history, with the methods of word derivation in its systematics. It is a reality that in the formation of a rich vocabulary of Turkish, in addition to Turkish words, words adopted from foreign languages with which it interacts in various fields such as religious, socio-cultural and literary also have an important place. Karaim, which is among the dialects of the Northwest group of the Turkic language, has also adopted words to its vocabulary by borrowing from languages such as Hebrew, Slavic, Arabic and Persian as a result of some relations. Karaim periodicals such as Karay Awazy, Onarmach, Halic, Sahyszymyz, Luwachlar, Przyjaciel Karaima ve Mysl Karaimska published in the second quarter of the 20th century, not only kept the Karaim written language alive in that period but also present important information about the vocabulary of Karaim‟s Trakai and Halic dialects. In this study, Karaim periodicals, which were created with the special efforts of pioneers such as Mardkowicz and Tınfovic in the second quarter of the 20th century, are searched and the loanwords determined from these publications is classified according to their origins and thus, it is aimed to contribute to the studies in this field.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it