dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
The Tungusic distinction is most commonly illustrated with the contrast between inherently possessed body parts (1a) on the one hand and body parts of dead animals that have entered the possession of some human (1b) on the other, with the latter being formally marked by a suffix -ŋ(V). Such examples appear to show that this formal opposition in possession marking is indeed one of inalienable versus alienable possession. (1) Nanai a. naj dili-ni person head-PX. 3SG '(the) person's head' b. naj dili-ŋgo-ni person head-ŋ(V)-PX. 3SG '(detached) head (e. g. , of an animal) owned by a person'  (Nichols 1988 : 565-566, taken from Avrorin 1959: 157-158 ; glosses and transcription modified) However, in Negidal, a critically endangered language spoken in the Far East of Russia, the so-called alienable possession suffix [which takes the form -ŋ(i)] occurs in contexts that cannot be explained by any form of loose association or "socially or economically conferred ownership"  (Nichols 1988: 568) , such as with human referents or with the sun, casting doubts on an analysis in terms of alienability.
These data illustrate how apparently straightforward examples of the so-called alienability contrast might upon close examination turn out to have very different underlying motivations, thus raising the possibility that other cases of supposed (in)alienability might in actual fact also have different causes (see also Rose, this issue). We extend our discussion to the closely related suffix -ŋi, which marks possessors in constructions with elided head nouns (hence the gloss PSR "possessor of elided head"). As will be detailed in Section 7, such constructions are non-canonical from a syntactic perspective and thus complement our understanding of non-canonical possessive constructions not only in Negidal, but also in other Tungusic languages. The remainder of the article is structured as follows: after a brief introduction to the language and the data that form the basis of this investigation (Section 2), we introduce possessive constructions in Negidal in Section 3.
In Section 4 we discuss the uses of the suffix -ŋ(i), which was previously considered a marker of alienable possession. In order to situate the Negidal data in a broader context we provide a brief overview of the cognate suffixes in other Tungusic languages (Section 5). Section 6 is devoted to the description of the suffix -ŋi, which marks the possessor in possessive constructions with elided possessee in Negidal as well as in other Tungusic languages. The article concludes with a discussion of the different non-canonical possessive constructions that are marked by these two clearly cognate suffixes (Section 7). 2 Negidal: the language and the data Negidal is a critically endangered Northern Tungusic language spoken in the Far East of the Russian Federation on the Lower Amur river and one of its major tributaries, the Amgun'.
At least two dialects used to be distinguished: Upper Negidal and Lower Negidal  (Cincius 1982: 3). However, Lower Negidal appears to be extinct by now, and only a handful of speakers of Upper Negidal remain  (Pakendorf and Aralova 2018) , among whom only two elderly women are still fluent in the language. Like its relatives, Negidal is a fairly agglutinative language with rich, exclusively suffixing morphology. It has nominative-accusative alignment, with obligatory indexation of the S/A argument on the verb; objects, in contrast, are not crossreferenced on verbs. Nevertheless, both S/A and object (pro)nominal arguments are commonly omitted if their referents are retrievable from the context. Due to vestiges of vowel harmony and consonant assimilation at morpheme boundaries, the surface forms of suffixes show some variation  (Pakendorf and Aralova 2020).
Possessive classes Our perusal of the Negidal corpus leads us to identify three different possessive classes of lexemes based on their morphosyntactic behavior: (i) obligatorily possessed nouns that practically always occur in a possessive construction; (ii) non-possessible items that generally do not occur in possessive constructions: these comprise semantically non-possessible nouns on the one hand, and formally non-possessible numerals, demonstratives, adjectives and participles on the other; and (iii) all other nouns which can occur both with or without possessive suffixes (including the proprietive), depending on the context. With respect to the function of -ŋ(i) it is the first two possessive classes that are relevant, since in the corpus data -ŋ(i) tends not to occur with optionally possessed nouns; we, therefore, provide more information on obligatorily possessed nouns and non-possessible items.
3. Our analysis contrasts with that of  Pevnov and Khasanova (2006: 503-504) , who discuss the suffix -ŋ(i) in semantic terms, as a marker of alienable possession, as is common in descriptions of Tungusic languages (cf. Cincius 1982: 20) ; they contrast it with "not-indirect possession" (nekosvennaja prinadležnost') that occurs with body parts, kin terms, domestic animals and cultural artefacts. A word of caution is in order: as pointed out in Section 2, we are basing our study purely on our analysis of the Negidal corpus. Given the nature of the corpus (spontaneous oral speech produced by individuals for whom Negidal has ceased to be the primary language of everyday use and who show differing degrees of attrition), counterexamples to our generalizations do occur, and not all of the examples are clear (∼4 % were coded as 'unclear' for various reasons, see coding sheet).
The marking of non-canonical possessive constructions in other Tungusic languages We here summarize information on possessive constructions in four relatives of Negidal: Evenki, Even, Udihe and Nanai. Even and Evenki, which are spoken by small speech communities dispersed over the length and breadth of Siberia, are very closely related to Negidal, while Udihe and Nanai, which are spoken in geographical proximity to Negidal, are genealogically distant  (Atknine 1997; Janhunen 2012). Our discussion is based on our interpretation of published descriptions and does not necessarily reflect the analysis of or the terms used by the original authors. Judging from the available sources, the suffix -ŋi in Evenki functions in a very similar manner to -ŋ(i) in Negidal. As in Negidal, kinship terms and body parts appear to be obligatorily possessed, since they practically always occur with possessive suffixes, whereas terms denoting humans, environmental features, plants, wild animals or birds, and nouns denoting uncountable entities ('water', 'bread', 'wood') cannot carry possessive suffixes directly.
Adjectives, participles, and demonstratives that take possessive marking because they substitute for an elided head noun need -ŋ(V) to license the possessive marking. From this perspective, the analysis we propose for Negidal could be extended to -ŋ(V) in other Tungusic languages, namely that this suffix has as its single function the marking of non-canonical possessive constructions. Like the possession of a body part by an individual who is not the inherent possessor, a kinship relationship that is not a true biological relationship is unexpected and not canonical, explaining why such a relationship is flagged with -ŋ in Even (  22 ), resulting in an apparent marking of alienable possession. 6 Possessor marking in constructions with elided possessee in Negidal and other Tungusic languages The description of non-canonical possessive constructions in Negidal would not be complete without describing another suffix, namely -ŋi, which was briefly mentioned in the introduction.
(  25 ) babuška nikolaeva tože kazarov-ja-ŋi granny. R PERS. NAME also. R PERS. NAME-ASS. PL-PSR 'Granny Nikolaeva was also one of the Kazarovs. ' (DIN_APN_za_chaem: 140) Interestingly, the split in marking a modifier depending on whether it is a possessor (marked with -ŋi) or another type of modifier [marked with -ŋ(V)] is found not only in Negidal, but is also present in some, albeit not all, other Tungusic languages. For Evenki,  Bulatova and Grenoble (1999: 14)  postulate a formal distinction of the suffix that marks possessors from the so-called marker of indirect possession: they analyze the morpheme that attaches to possessors as having a long vowel (-ŋiː) as opposed to the short vowel they determine for the suffix that marks possessees. However, this distinction is not mirrored in  Nedjalkov's (1997: 123-125)  analysis, which appears to identify the two suffixes as one and the same form, an analysis that also seems to be taken by  Boldyrev (2007: 122-139).
Discussion and conclusions To summarize, the Tungusic languages have one (Evenki in one analysis, Udihe) or two (Evenki in an alternative analysis, Negidal, Even, and Nanai) formally very similar suffixes that occur in possessive constructions. One of these has the form -ŋi in all the languages except for Nanai, where it is -ŋgi, the other is -ŋ in Even and Negidal (with insertion of an epenthetic schwa or [i], respectively) and -ŋgo/-ŋgu in Nanai. These suffixes are most probably cognate (cf. Sunik 1982: 65), with the protoform arguably being -ŋiand, as shown by the Manchu datathe original function possibly being the marking of possessors in adnominal constructions in which the head noun is omitted. In the languages that have two formally distinct suffixes, the formal distinction corresponds to a syntactic distinction, since the suffix -ŋi occurs exclusively with possessors in constructions with elided head nouns, while the suffix -ŋ(V) occurs with possessees.
However, while the formal split corresponds to the syntactic split between possessor-and possessee-marking, there is also noncorrespondence between form and syntactic function, since like -ŋi the suffix -ŋ(V) occurs with modifiers of elided possessees. Thus, in some languages, two distinct suffixes are found in adnominal possessive constructions with an elided head noun. A diachronic analysis of these suffixes in the Tungusic languages might help elucidate how these distinct functions evolved but has to be left for a later stage. In addition to the shared origin of these suffixes, they can also be analyzed as sharing an overarching function, namely the FLAGGING OF NON-CANONICAL POSSESSIVE CON- STRUCTIONS. In Section 4. 3, we argued that the suffix -ŋ(i) that occurs in possessive constructions in Negidal has erroneously been analyzed as a marker of alienable possession, following a Tungusological tradition.
Therefore the function of -ŋi marking possessors of elided head nouns can be subsumed synchronically under the overall function that we propose for -ŋ(i), namely the marking of non-canonical possessive constructions. Judging from the available descriptions, this analysis could be extended to the cognate suffix(es) in Negidal's sister languages. Non-canonical possessive constructions are clearly a complex, multilayered and interlaced phenomenon, with semantic, formal, and syntactic factors playing a role (Figure  1 ). Regarding nouns, possession can be seen as non-canonical mainly for semantic reasons: the suffix is used either with body parts that are possessed by a non-inherent, i. e. , non-canonical, possessor, or with nouns that refer to entities that cannot be possessed, such as humans or different natural entities.
Acknowledgments: The ideas discussed here were first presented at the "Atelier morphosyntaxe" at the research unit  Dynamique Du Langage  on 15 December 2020, with an updated version presented at the conference "Malye Jazyki v Bol'šoj Lingvistike", Moscow, on 24 April 2021; we thank the audiences of both events for their discussion and comments. We are particularly grateful to  An Van  linden for extensive comments on a draft of this article that helped us to refine our arguments. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful and thoughtful reading of the article and their suggestions. We also acknowledge the generous support of the Endangered Languages Documentation Project (www. eldp. net), which enabled our work on the Negidal corpus. Brigitte Pakendorf  is grateful to the  ASLAN  project ( ANR-10-LABX-0081 ) of the  Université de Lyon , for its financial support within the  French program "Investments for the Future " operated by the  National Research Agency (ANR).
In another emblematic case study, GP was able to design a novel antenna  [8] , proving its effectiveness in creating a structure considerably different from human blueprints. A hypothetical generative DL system applied to the same task would be unlikely to uncover such a solution, as the final result fell well outside the distribution of samples it could have had observed. Apart from this niche, in some cases GP seems to have followed the old saying "if you cannot defeat them, join them": While GP cannot compete with ML and DL directly, its inherent characteristics might be used to support them. GP-based neuro-evolution is again at the forefront, with interesting results, close to or better than the state-of-the-art human-designed networks  [9] [10] [11] ; and even for boosted trees, recent attempts at using ensembles of GP trees evolved with a MAP-Elites  [12]  scheme were able to outperform classical strategies for boosting  [13] -not to mention TPOT  [14] , seen above, by far the GP-based tool with more stars on GitHub.
| Journal selection and data analysis We selected four journals for this analysis: Infancy, Child Development, Developmental Science, Developmental Psychology. We selected these journals because they represent generalist outlets with stated broad foci. All data are aggregated across the four journals. We included articles that met three criteria. First, we included articles with participants that ranged from birth to 30 months. For articles with multiple studies, some of which tested participants below 30 months and others of which tested participants above 30 months, we included samples below 30 months. If samples were indivisible (e. g. , "Participants ranged in age from 2 to 5 years"), the article was excluded. Second, we focused on articles investigating typically developing infants. We therefore excluded articles where children were reported to have known developmental delays or disabilities.
| Representation of participants' race/ethnicity We examined the full text of each article for demographic information to chart race and ethnicity and geographical representation of participants. We relied on the author's provision of this information for all information. Here after, "sample" refers to unique groups of infants being tested within a study. "Study" refers to the entire data set within an article, which may contain more than one type of sample. "Article" refers to the published manuscript. Coding methods for all demographic variables are detailed in Supporting Information S1. All data are available at https://osf. io/ e6z27/?view_only=ee1ed98829274619ad4725263606a1b9. Within each study, we classified each sample by racial and ethnic categories as reported by authors. The reported racial categories of individual samples within studies were coded and the proportion of studies that corresponded to each racial category was computed by year of publication (see Figure  2 ).
This figure reflects data aggregated across 987,486 participants distributed over 1682 studies. As can be seen in Figure  2 , there was consistent under-reporting of race and/or ethnicity, a pattern that remained stable over the 12-year period with no observable attenuation. Of the subset of studies that reported the race of samples (47% of total studies), 82% reported data from White or predominantly White samples, a pattern that also remained stable over the 12-year period. Representation of Black, Latinx, Asian, and Indigenous samples combined amounted to less than 4% of all studies that reported participant race. For a more granular view of participant representation, we manually calculated the proportion of participants belonging to each racial group across the period sampled. This analysis collapsed across samples within studies.
| Representation of participants' places of origin Next, we examined the geographical distribution of regions from which samples were drawn. Studies varied in how authors reported location of data. Studies were categorized into those that explicitly mentioned location of testing or those that made no mention of location or that indirectly stated location (see Supporting Information S1 for the detailed coding protocol). Over the time period sampled, nearly half the studies (43%) had no location information stated. As can be seen in Figure  4a , there has been a gradual increase over time in whether location of data collection was stated and a corresponding decrease in studies for which no location information was provided. Of studies where location was explicitly stated, each study was classified by the world region where the study took place (Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, North America, South America, Western Europe, Oceania) or as being multi-region (data was collected in more than one of these regions).
| Summary of data analysis We discuss changes first in demographic reporting and second in demographic representation. First, in terms of reporting, much demographic data remain largely absent from the research record. This is particularly pronounced in reporting of race/ethnicity, but it is also apparent in reporting of location. Reporting of race/ethnicity is complex in some regions, such areas of Western Europe, which may account for low reporting from these regions. Among studies conducted in Western Europe, 72% did not report race/ethnicity data. In contrast, 36% of studies conducted in North America did not F I G U R E 4 (a) Reporting patterns for location of data collection across time for studies aggregated across journals by whether location was stated or not stated. (b) Reported location of data collection aggregated across journals for studies where location was directly reported.
Inclusion of evaluators from LMIC The majority of infants around the world are raised in an low-to-middle income countries (LMIC), making the inclusion of such children crucial to a globally representative narrative of infant development As can be seen from our data, however, LMIC representation in infant research is very limited. In addition, research from LMICs in our dataset was often conducted with the goal of confirming theories originating from the U. S. or Western Europe. However, the specific topic areas, research methods, and scientific foci relevant to LMICs differ markedly from research from HICs  (Bornstein et al. , 2012). Areas of research such as the impact of nutrition, chronic stress, poverty, and/or political instability may be more critical determinants of infant thriving in these settings and as such, the basic questions may differ from HICs (see  Tomlinson & Morgan, 2015).
Cattle brands (ownership marks left on animals) are subject to forces influencing other graphic codes: the copying of constituent parts, pressure for distinctiveness and pressure for complexity. The historical record of cattle brands in some US states is complete owing to legal registration, providing a unique opportunity to assess how sampling processes leading to time-and space-averaging influence our ability to make inferences from limited datasets in fields like archaeology. In this preregistered study, we used a dataset of ∼81,000 Kansas cattle brands  to explore two aspects: (1) the relative influence of copying, pressure for distinctiveness and pressure for complexity on the creation and diffusion of brand components; and (2) the effects of time-and space-averaging on statistical signals.
In their study of heraldic coats of arms, Morin and Miton found that their shuffling model managed to predict the popularity of coats of arms to a substantial degree. They also found that the presence of heraldic coats of arms is better predicted by a random copying model when it is applied to spaceaveraged data from all of Europe rather than from individual provinces  (Morin & Miton, 2018). In this case, space-mixing might disrupt local clusters of design elements that result from wholesale copying of coats of arms within families, thus improving the predictions of a model that assumes random copying of individual design elements. Do time-and space-mixing boost signals of random copying? To answer this question, we compared the performance of an adapted version of Morin and Miton's shuffling model  (Morin & Miton, 2018)  on structured, time-mixed and space-mixed datasets.
For each of these datasets, we first used the shuffling model to calculate the predicted prevalence of every possible combination of components. Then, we used linear mixed models to compare the accuracy of these predictions after accounting for factors like complexity. We hypothesised that the shuffling model would perform better on the time-and space-mixed datasets compared with structured datasets. The structured datasets built for this goal were also used to test whether brands that are closer to each other in time tend to be more similar.
We used a custom neural network in Tesseract OCR to automatically extract the cattle brand codes and zip codes from 2008, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and manually transcribed the brand book from 1990 to maximise the temporal depth of our data. 1998 and 2003 were excluded owing to time and labour constraints. The estimated error rate in transcription, based on a manual check of 1500 brands, was 0% for brand codes and 0. 4% for locations. Details about the automated and manual transcription can be seen in the data GitHub. 4 Each brand code has 13 digits, composed of four three-digit component codes and one single-digit location code. The three-digit component codes contain the abbreviation for the component and a number denoting its angle of rotation. Kansas' coding system has some redundancies, such as '\' and '/' having separate abbreviations despite being rotated versions of the same component.
We collapsed and converted redundant abbreviations into single categories with corrected angles of rotation. Kansas' Brands Program only allows duplicated cattle brands if they are located on different parts of the animal. Duplicated brand codes (as opposed to the cattle brands themselves) can also occur when the same components are combined in a different arrangement. We chose to remove duplicate brand codes from within the same zip code, which usually occur when a family or ranch has registered a single brand multiple times for different locations, but we chose to keep duplicate brand codes from different zip codes, which usually correspond to different arrangements of the same components. In total, we have 81,063 brand codes from 1990 to 2016, comprised 103 unique components (details in the code GitHub 5  ).
The same summary statistics were calculated from the real data from 2008, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Then, the random forest version of approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) was conducted using the abcrf package in R  (Raynal et al. , 2019) , with the following steps: 1. 500,000 iterations of the ABM were run to generate simulated summary statistics for different values of λ and C. 2. The output of these simulations were combined into a reference table with the simulated summary statistics as predictor variables, and the parameter values as outcome variables. λ was logtransformed because it is non-negative, as recommended for non-linear regression-based ABC  (Blum & François, 2010; Sisson et al. , 2018). 3. A random forest of 1000 regression trees was constructed for each parameter using bootstrap samples of 80% of the data from the reference table.