17 Applicative constructions in the Inuit-Yupik-Unangan (Eskimo-Aleut) languages
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
Six applicative constructions can be identified in languages of the Yupik-Inuktitut- Unangan family. The languages show basic ergative/absolutive patterning in nominal case marking, and only definite referents can be core arguments. The applicatives add an argument which is cast as the absolutive of a transitive clause. The base clause may be intransitive or transitive, but if it was transitive, the original absolutive is expressed as an oblique or not mentioned. One general applicative, with cognates across the family, is quite productive and can add a recipient, a beneficiary, a referent affected by natural phenomena, a companion, an instrument, or a reason. Within the Yupik-Inuktitut branch, one additional applicative built on this can add a reason in Yupik, and an instrument, means, cause, or reason in Kalaallisut (Greenlandic). Another can add a spatial goal. Yup'ik also contains an adversative applicative and a replacive applicative 'in place of'. Kalaallisut also contains a comitative applicative. Applicative clauses can be nominalized to form terms referring to the applied absolutive. Within discourse, applicatives can function to bring topical referents into the core, but because they are derivational, their use depends on the inventories of derived lexical items in each language.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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