Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language death represents a complex phenomenon which is linguistically and socially engaging for both the academic community and the wider public as out of the current 7,099 languages, at least 1, 547 (22%) are endangered. Linguistically, the study of the phenomenon encompasses various stages of endangerment of a certain language and it can be followed from its endangered to extinct stage where a different process can take place - that of language revival and revitalization. The latter notion covers a multitude of interdisciplinary measures that are designed to promote the rights and the status of a language. The process also encompasses language documentation - recording of languages. In the context of Anglophone communities, language death can be viewed from an extra-national and national level since the dominance of English has been ensured through historic and economic waves. Also, "great nations" such as Australia, Canada and the USA have ensured that minor languages were and are still subjugated through covert and overt measures: language ideologies, planning and policies. The aim of the paper is to analyse the status of multiple Indigenous languages in Anglophone context through the theoretical framework of language death. The research method used in this task was based on descriptive analysis. The paper is divided into two parts: the first part is based on illustrating various topics on language death across a multitude of Indigenous languages and in the second part, the analysis is narrowed down to particular languages of Northern America (Tohono O'odham, Maliseet, Apache in Fort Apache, Kwak'wala, Mohawk (Kanien'keha)) and Australia (Yan-nhaŋu and Warlpiri).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".