Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rift Valley area of central and northern Tanzania is of considerable interest for the study of language contact, since it is unique in being the only area in Africa where members of all four language families are, and have been, in contact for a long time, having had linguistic interaction of various intensity at various points in time, which is reflected by convergence in parts of their grammatical structures (see map 6.1). The modern languages that took part in this linguistic contact are the West Rift languages of Southern Cushitic (Iraqw, Gorwaa, Alagwa, and Burunge), the Datooga dialects of Southern Nilotic, some Bantu languages of the F zone (Nyaturu, Rangi, Mbugwe, and maybe Nilyamba, Isanzu, and Kimbu), and Sandawe and Hadza, the Khoisan languages of eastern Africa. Actually, in the absence of any unambiguous indication that Hadza is genetically linked to Khoisan, it is better to be considered a linguistic isolate; see Sands (1998). The fact that the languages involved come from different, genetically unrelated families makes this area very promising for the study of language contact in that similarities between languages have five possible explanations: (i) universal properties, (ii) chance, (iii) borrowing or diffusion, (iv) retention, or (v) parallel development (Aikhenvald & Dixon 2001).
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it