-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 135
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add endangerment data from ELCat #53
Milestone
Comments
A simple merge algo would be:
|
ELCat took Unesco data into account when constructing their endangerment
index; Unesco endangerment indices are also in part based on Ethnologue, I
think (all these sites harvest data from one another in a more or less
obvious way). ELCat has better coverage for some areas than unesco though,
and is probably more accurate.
…On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Robert Forkel ***@***.***> wrote:
We may want to add the endangerment data from ELCat, which breaks down as
shown below. The question is whether we want to merge this with the UNESCO
data, or keep the possibly two assessments side by side? I'd opt for
merging, since otherwise we'd be be adding not much of a service. If we
merge, the question would become how to re-concile the endangerment levels
below with UNESCO's
<http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/atlas-of-languages-in-danger/>
.
>>> for k, v in states.most_common():
... print k, v
...
Threatened 900
Endangered 748
Vulnerable 548
Critically endangered 429
Severely endangered 367
Dormant 191
At risk 82
Awakening 66
>>> for k, v in certainty.most_common():
... print k, v
...
20 percent certain, based on the evidence available 2129
80 percent certain, based on the evidence available 337
100 percent certain, based on the evidence available 313
60 percent certain, based on the evidence available 237
40 percent certain, based on the evidence available 189
None 126
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#53>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AP8oRxeXoLQdwe3OQCN4iFurDxLhYoHsks5rYgF9gaJpZM4L1T5p>
.
--
Claire Bowern
Associate Professor
Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Linguistics
370 Temple St, Rm 313
New Haven, CT 06511
Support the Endangered Language Fund!: http://smile.amazon.com/ch/06-1459207
.
|
@chirila So is this a yes to adding and merging? The value Glottolog would be adding would be
We will still link to both, EndangeredLanguages and UNESCO, so I think this could be considered win-win. |
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
…On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Robert Forkel ***@***.***> wrote:
@chirila <https://github.com/chirila> So is this a yes to adding and
merging? The value Glottolog would be adding would be
- transparent update procedure via git (and GitHub)
- mapping to Glottolog/Glottocodes
- merged/extended coverage
- better programmatic access to the data
We will still link to both, EndangeredLanguages and UNESCO, so I think
this could be considered win-win.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#53 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AP8oR-amhQMoW0moIvpLxyU5RzGzVw2sks5rYgRfgaJpZM4L1T5p>
.
--
Claire Bowern
Associate Professor
Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Linguistics
370 Temple St, Rm 313
New Haven, CT 06511
Support the Endangered Language Fund!: http://smile.amazon.com/ch/06-1459207
.
|
I + some others took a closer look not too long ago and I can add the
following observations:
1. Elcat, Unesco and Ethnologue differ a lot in their assessments.
Thousands of languages differ if one takes one or the other as
authoritative.
2. My impression is that the order of reliability (overall, different for
specific regions) is ethnologue, elcat and last unesco
3. Like Claire says the different catalogues draw on each other in adhoc
ways, if Glottolog becomes another silo without a principled selection
procedure I am not sure if we add anything at all. but if we want to do
that, Unesco and Elcat have hundreds of language each where the iso and/or
glottocode assignment is wrong or non-trivial and I have corrected mappings
4. The extinct flag of Glottolog should is more correct than the
corresponding status for any of the three endangerment catalogues
2017-02-02 21:54 GMT+01:00 Claire Bowern <notifications@github.com>:
… Yes, that sounds reasonable.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Robert Forkel ***@***.***>
wrote:
> @chirila <https://github.com/chirila> So is this a yes to adding and
> merging? The value Glottolog would be adding would be
>
> - transparent update procedure via git (and GitHub)
> - mapping to Glottolog/Glottocodes
> - merged/extended coverage
> - better programmatic access to the data
>
> We will still link to both, EndangeredLanguages and UNESCO, so I think
> this could be considered win-win.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#53 (comment)>,
or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AP8oR-
amhQMoW0moIvpLxyU5RzGzVw2sks5rYgRfgaJpZM4L1T5p>
> .
>
--
Claire Bowern
Associate Professor
Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Linguistics
370 Temple St, Rm 313
New Haven, CT 06511
Support the Endangered Language Fund!: http://smile.amazon.com/ch/06-
1459207
.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#53 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADUDyDSGZYsuoum2MiNP6JtEjPw4_jyLks5rYkKOgaJpZM4L1T5p>
.
|
Merged endangerment data from multiple sources has been added in a |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
We may want to add the endangerment data from ELCat, which breaks down as shown below. The question is whether we want to merge this with the UNESCO data, or keep the possibly two assessments side by side? I'd opt for merging, since otherwise we'd be be adding not much of a service. If we merge, the question would become how to re-concile the endangerment levels below with UNESCO's.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: