Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial includes a list of grammars or grammar sketches that appeared in 2023 and was compiled following the steps outlined in the Grammar Highlights 2022 editorial (see Rosés Labrada 2023).I add here two additional comments that serve to contextualize the present list.First, note that, while the descriptions of Chotanagpuri Sadri by Peterson and Baraik and of Liangsu by Chen and Tan are listed in Glottolog as published in 2023, the publisher websites for both show a 2022 publication date.I use here the latter date and include these as they were not included in the Grammar Highlights 2022 editorial.Second, the label "extinct" is used here in connection to the description of Azuma Old Japanese by Kupchik.Given the negative connotations of this term and as discussed in the Grammar Highlights 2022 editorial, we have opted for abandoning "extinct" in favour of "dormant".However, in connection with languages that evolved into other languages (e.g., Latin or Old Japanese) or languages that disappeared at some point in the distant past and for which there is no ethnic community that identifies with the language (e.g., Etruscan), the label "dormant" seems inaccurate.Going forward, we will reserve the label "extinct" for such cases.Finally, I would like to close this Grammar Highlights with a special mention.While none of the sketches in the two volumes on Amazonian isolates edited by Epps and Michael (2023) exceed 100 pages and are therefore not included here, it is worth mentioning that many of these sketches constitute the most extensive grammatical descriptions available for several of these languages.As such, these sketches may be of interest to the Linguistic Typology readership.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.207 | 0.126 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".