MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389677013 · doi:10.1515/9780889773639-005

A Note on Terminology

2014· book-chapter· en· W4389677013 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Garrett Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Regina Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lthough the word indian as applied to the aboriginal inhabitants of North America has fallen into disfavour, so that some writers now prefer Amerindian, I chosen to continue the more common usage, if only Plains Indian is employed somewhat casually to describe all the buffalo-hunting who ranged the Great Plains.Because it originated as pejorative, and also because it is seen as too embracing, the Sioux also carries disapproval, Dakota being the acceptable term.There are main linguistic divisions, Dakota, Nakota and Lakota, spoken, respectively, by groups known as the Santee, Yankton and Teton, each group in turn consisting of numerous individual bands or tribes.The Tetons, the most westerly, alone divided into seven councils.Crazy Horse, for example, was of the Oglala and Sitting Bull was of Hunkpapa.Again, for simplicity, Sioux has been employed to refer to all.Similarly, the term Blackfoot is used collectively to refer to not only the Blackfoot people proper, but also those of the Blackfoot Confederacy, which included the Blood, the Sarcee, and the Peigan.As well, Ojibwa and Saulteaux refer to one common people.And no has been to distinguish between the Plains Cree, Woodland Cree or Swampy Cree.In the early years of the Red River Settlement, the terms Half-Breed and Métis carried separate definitions.Half-Breed designated mixed-blood descendants of Indian and Scottish or English parentage, while Métis referred

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Regina Press eBooksSame topiclinguistics and terminology studiesFrench-language works237,207