Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Linguistic anthropology can be understood as attention to the use and communicative context of language across cultures and societies. The legacy of linguistic anthropology for both of its constituent disciplines resides in qualitative research methods and the attention paid to the particular words of particular speakers. Linguistic anthropologists have also modelled ethical ways of doing collaborative research. Canadian linguistic anthropology has been pragmatic and closely tied to the maintenance and revitalization of First Nations (Native Canadian) languages. Issues of language are inseparable from those of community and larger social processes: this can be seen in the context of traditional Algonquian languages in the Prairies as well as in the adaptation of English to First Nations purposes. The latter is a reaction to the imposition of residential schooling that alienated students from their culture, their community, and their language, and escalated language loss. Current research on life-history narratives indicates that nomadic legacies of subsistence hunting are still present in the decision-making strategies of contemporary Algonquian peoples in southern Ontario.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.065 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".