Discussion list: Chinook in the UCS Historical Overview of the Duployan and adaptations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Duployan shorthands and Chinook script are used as a secondary shorthand for writing French, English, German, Spanish, Romanian, and as an alternate primary script for several first nations ' languages of interior British Columbia, including the Chinook Jargon, Okanagan, Lilooet, Shushwap, and North Thompson. The original Duployan shorthand was invented by Emile Duployé, published in 1860, as a stenographic shorthand for French. It was one of the two most commonly used French shorthands, being more popular in the south of France, and adjacent French speaking areas of other countries. Adapted Duployan shorthands were also developed for English, German, Spanish, and Romanian. The basic inventory of consonant and vowel signs- all in the first two columns of the allocation- have been augmented over the years to provide more efficient shorthands for these languages and to adapt it to the phonologies of these languages and the languages using Chinook writing. There currently exists no encoding- PUA or otherwise- for the representation of the Duployan or Chinook. Indeed, the submission of the Duployan Shorthands and Chinook script to the Unicode Consortium has necessitated the creation, from scratch, of the first Duployan/Chinook font, and the allocation is based solely on the internal logic of the script and affinity of usage among characters. The Chinook script was an adaptation and augmentation of the Duployan shorthand by fr. Jean Marie Raphael LeJeune, used for writing the Chinook Jargon and other languages of 19th c. interior British Columbia. Its original use and greatest surviving attestation is from the run of the Kamloops Wawa, a (mostly) Chinook Jargon newsletter of the Catholic diocese of Kamloops, British Columbia, published 1891-1923. At the time, the Chinook Jargon pidgin was widely spoken from SE Alaska to northern California, from the Pacific to the Rockies, and sporadically
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.268 | 0.078 |
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".