A Review of Three Recent Dictionaries of Indigenous Languages Spoken in South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this review essay, we compare three recent dictionaries of Indigenous languages spoken in South America. The review covers two print dictionaries—one of which is trilingual (Quechua, Spanish and English) and the other the second edition of a bilingual Q’eqchi’-English dictionary—and a bilingual, digital dictionary hosted online (Wichí-Spanish). The structure of this review essay is as follows: first, we offer a brief introduction to each of the languages covered in the dictionaries. Following the introduction, we offer sections in which we compare the orthographic choices made by the compilers, entry design and ordering within the publications. We also address the overarching structure of each dictionary, questions of language production and reception, as well as editorial decisions relating to the incorporation of neologisms. In addition, we include an analysis of the intended audience and accessibility of each dictionary, supplemented by a reflection about ownership and control of language data, community investment and how these resources address dialectal variation within the language, if indeed any exists.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".