MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Word Classes in Salish Languages

2023· book-chapter· en· W4389879382 on OpenAlexaff
Donna B. Gerdts, Lauren Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsAdverbNounVerbAdjectiveComputer scienceNatural language processingWord formationRoot (linguistics)Artificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Word classes have been controversial in Salish language research, but the current consensus among Salishanists is that the concepts of noun and verb, as well as adjective and adverb, are important for constructing insightful grammars of the languages. Drawing on primary data from the Central Salish language Halkomelem as well as discussions of word classes by various scholars, we show that entity-denoting and event-denoting words can clearly be related to nouns and verbs respectively. Nouns and verbs exhibit clear inflectional differences even though some inflectional processes—such as tense, plural, and diminutive marking—pertain to all lexical classes. We also illustrate morphological processes that change the lexical class of a word. Adjectives have been understudied in Salish languages, which have few true adjectives, as modification is also accomplished by means of stative-resultative forms. Adverbs divide into two types—those that must be followed by a linker and those that can occur in many positions. We conclude that categorial distinctions are relevant to the description and analysis of Salish languages at all levels: root, word, phrase, and clause.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207