MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321498969 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n2p336

The Cases of the Albanian Language - Based on the Point of View of the Linguist Fatmir Agalliu

2023· article· en· W4321498969 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Petrit Duraj, Fridrik Dulaj, Senad Neziri, Nexhmije Kastrati

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPluralNominative casePoint (geometry)LinguisticsValue (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematicsPhilosophyVerbGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to provide the contribution of the linguist Fatmir Agalliu and his point of view for Albanian language’s cases. Fatmir Agalliu belongs to the first generation of Albanian linguists that were educated inside the country that have given important support in the study of Albanian Language. An important and big value case is also his contribution on the determination of the number of cases in Albanian Language. In the determination of the number and the classification of cases of a language, we should consider specific features of that language and we should not apply a case system of another language mechanically. In Albanian declension there are two different aspects, definite and indefinite aspect. That means that case forms are doubled. Therefore, instead of having two nominative forms, one for singular and one for plural, we have four forms in fact, two for singular (definite and indefinite) and two for plural (definite and indefinite). Form and the content should take into consideration in treating case as a grammatical category claims Fatmir Agalliu.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207