Indigenous Lexicography: A Review of Recent Dictionaries and Works Relating to Lexicography
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 In this review essay, we compare five recent publications relating to dictionary work with Indigenous languages. The review covers three dictionaries, one monograph about lexicography in service of Indigenous language revitalization and the second volume of a two-volume dictionary-cum-encyclopedia. The structure of this review essay is as follows: following a brief introduction to each of the languages covered in these five publications, we include sections comparing orthographic choices and representations, internal structure and entry design, an examination of each dictionary’s approach to the incorporation of neologisms and the software choices made by compilers. In addition, we offer an analysis of each dictionary’s intended audience and access requirements, some structured reflections on authorship and ownership, an exploration of each project’s commitment to community engagement, strategies for the representation of dialectal variation and finally, relevant information about how each dictionary project was funded and resourced.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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