Bibliographic record
Abstract
a not e on l a nguages Inuit languages are written in a variety of ways.Much of Nunavut has adapted a version of the syllabic system that was first used for the Cree language and later brought north by the Reverend Edmund Peck.The Western dialects of Inuinnaqtun and Inuvialuktun, however, are written in the roman alphabet, while Labrador uses the orthography of the Moravian missionaries.A thorough overview of these variations can be found in Kenn Harper's "Inuit Writing Systems in Nunavut: Issues and Challenges." One of the challenges relevant here is that Inuktitut words written in roman letters are rendered in a range of spellings, and even proper names can vary immensely.Inuktitut also differs quite substantially by dialect, and there is no standardized version of the language in Canada.In discussing texts from different regions, then, I have attempted to preserve the spellings used in the texts themselves.As a result, my spelling of names (such as Ivaluardjuk) or terms (such as unikkaaqtuaq) may vary.I may also at times exhibit a bias for Eastern dialects, as I am most familiar with the language of the Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin) region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".