Low hanging fruit and the Boasian trilogy in digital lexicography of morphologically rich languages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online lexicographical resources for the morphologically rich Indigenous languages in Canada use a wide range of strategies for conveying their language’s morphological system, i.e. how words are inflected and derived, which this paper illustrates in a survey of seventeen bilingual online resources. The strategies these resources employ boil down to two basic approaches to the underlying structure of the resource: 1) a lexical database, or 2) a computational model. Most resources we surveyed are constructed around lexical databases. These assume the word(form) as the basic unit, an assumption that makes it difficult to incorporate the language’s sub-word, morphological structure in full detail. However, one resource uses a computational morphological model to bring the language’s morphology into the core of the lexicon – this proved to be a “low-hanging fruit” in the application of language technology that had been accomplished within a reasonable time-frame, as has been advocated by Trond Trosterud. We discuss the value created and questions raised by this approach and argue that it successfully overcomes the traditional Boasian three-way partition of dictionary, grammar, and text, creating integrated language resources that meet the modern needs of low-resource endangered languages and their communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".