Conflation of spatial reference frames in deaf community sign languages
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
Abstract Linguistic spatial descriptions are not purely arbitrary, but are to some extent motivated by many interactive factors. For example, whether the language community is predominantly urban or rural may motivate its reliance on relative or absolute reference frame (Dasen and Mishra 2010; Pederson 1993, 2006). This review paper contributes to Sociotopography in two ways: first, by showing that the distribution of reference frames reported in the literature corresponds to deaf community sign languages and village sign languages (thus the urban-rural differences generalize across modalities), and second, that deaf community sign languages all allow their users to employ a conflated intrinsic-relative frame, which is possibly due to affordances of the visual-manual modality (a modality-specific feature). Comparing the visual-manual and the aural-oral modalities therefore shows that some variation in spatial descriptions correlates with the environment regardless of the modality used, but also highlights modality-specific properties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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