Testing the Intelligibility of Nigerian Fali to Cameroonian Fali, Bana and Gude Listeners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the word 'Fali' to identify a group of people and languages in northern Cameroon and Nigeria has caused significant challenges to the classification of the languages and the description of the link between those communities. This study aims at testing the intelligibility of Nigerian Fali to Cameroonian Fali (CamFali), Bana and Gude speakers in order to bring out the relationship between the languages. Participants to the study include 88 Cameroonian native and fluent speakers of the above listed languages, made up of 46 CamFali speakers from the Bossum, Kangu, Peske-Bori and Tinguelin communities, 35 Gude speakers from Gude dialect (Gude D), Djimi and Njanyi, and 7 Bana speakers. The informants were met either in-person or online (through WhatsApp), and they listened to 3 recordings from 3 dialects of Nigerian Fali, namely Vimtim, Bahuli and Muchalla which were obtained from Global Recordings Network to test the listeners' recognition and comprehension of the languages. The findings indicated that the 3 languages are neither intelligible to CamFali nor to Bana listeners, but they are rather variants of Djimi which in turn is a dialect of Gude. The study also revealed that from the 3 dialects of Gude, Djimi is more related to Gude D than Njanyi. It was therefore concluded that Nigerian Fali is not related to CamFali and Bana, but it is rather Gude, which confirms that the word 'Fali' does not refer to specific people with common ancestral or linguistic background.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".