MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396939176 · doi:10.3765/plsa.v9i1.5715

Information-theoretic applications to Hupa verbal morphology

2024· article· en· W4396939176 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Rousseau Duval

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Linguistic Society of America · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphology (biology)Computer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hupa (Na:tinixwe Mixine:whe’) is a Pacific Coast Dene language spoken in Hoopa Valley in Northern California. Like its Dene sisters, Hupa exhibits complex verbal morphology which has attracted decades of theoretical research. One approach that has yet to have been applied to these languages is information theory. Previous information-theoretic research into verbal morphology has uncovered a cross-linguistic trend of grouping predictive information closer together and finding morphemes that are more mutually-informative to the root closer to the root, which in turn reduces overall surprisal and is easier on memory constraints. However, these studies analyzed prominently suffixing languages of Afro-Eurasia. This project is the first application of these information-theoretic concepts to a Dene language to investigate if these approaches also apply to explain morpheme order in a low-resource, Indigenous American language with intricate, prominently-prefixing morphology. The results indicate similar findings to previous research. Hupa demonstrates a word-level linear morpheme order that, on average, orders most mutually-informative morphemes closest to the verb root compared to a randomized baseline. This morpheme order also resulted in an average surprisal that was more comparable to optimized morpheme orders than a randomized baseline. Morpheme-type mutual information, however, demonstrates the discrepancies between word- and templatic-level information content in Hupa, which exemplifies the word-level efficiency that Hupa shares with other languages despite the typological uniqueness of its morphological grammar.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Linguistic Society of AmericaSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207