An Open-Access Toolkit for Collaborative, Community-Informed Dictionaries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: In this article, we discuss the development of a relational lexicography framework and an open-access toolkit for collaborative, community-informed dictionaries. We explain how the relational lexicography toolkit supports envisioning, developing, and publishing dictionaries that meet the cultural, linguistic, and educational goals of Indigenous communities who, despite ongoing language shift, are working to strengthen their languages. This framework recognizes the many relationships that are present in community-based language projects, including relationships between speakers, dialects, academics, communities, and the dictionary itself. The toolkit, which comprises two online Knowledgebase of Indigenous language dictionaries and lexicography technologies, documents how these relationships have been represented in existing work and provides a centralized platform to refer to and compare resources. Overall, this article provides background context on our methodology, project development, aspects of the resulting resources, and the anticipated benefit of creating such an open-access framework in support of community-based lexicography.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it