Creating the Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey Dictionary: A Personal Reflection on Fifty Years of Lexicography
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: Making a dictionary of the Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey language has demanded two types of commitment. The technical, practical side of the lexicographers' task is compiling words, organizing the collection into accessible entries with useful content, and formatting the dictionary both for publication as a book and online. Equally important is the cultural and social commitment required of dictionary-makers; for a dictionary by its very nature embodies the language and is a gateway into understanding the ways in which speakers express thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and personal relations. This understanding must be reflected both in the dictionary entries themselves and in their presentation. The compilation of the Passamaquoddy-Wolastoqey dictionary has been a long-term process, which began in the 1970s and continues today. The following account recalls the processes the authors have used, the insights they have gained about language and lexicography, and the results of their work. It is a personal memoir in the sense that it reflects my own perceptions of the dictionary's evolution and of the people who created it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it