MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392573538 · doi:10.36368/jns.v11i1.876

Language and Space in Northern Spaces

2018· article· en· W4392573538 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Andersson, Lars-Erik Edlund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Northern Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)North Germanic languagesLinguisticsHistorySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The call sent out for this issue of Journal of Northern Studies asked for contributions on "Language and Place in Northern Spaces," a theme that invites interpretation. 1 What is a "northern space" to begin with?And how is language and place connected?As the contributions were sent in and the issue gradually took shape, possible answers to these questions were formulated.Although a "northern space" is a mental construct whose only necessary characteristic is that of being located north of a given vantage point, there also exists a sort of "canonised" north, i.e. geographical areas and societies "furthest to the north."It is this latter type of northern spaces that became the main focus of this thematic issue: Sami contexts in Sápmi in northern Scandinavia and Inuit contexts in Greenland, Canada and northern Alaska.The juxtaposition of language and place also requires an explanation, since there are many kinds of such connections, illustrated by research on, for example, linguistic landscapes, dialectology and sociolinguistics.In place-name studies, however, there are indisputable and strong connections between language and place.Place-names not only identify places and make it possible to describe and talk about the places they denote, they are place, they create place."Naming," as the geog-

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.026
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.321 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Northern StudiesSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207