Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35675367›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Best practices for spatial language data harmonization, sharing and map creation-A case study of Uralic.

Timo Rantanen, Harri Tolvanen, Meeli Roose, Jussi Ylikoski, Outi Vesakoski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Timo RantanenDepartment of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-0835-9088
Harri TolvanenDepartment of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Meeli RooseDepartment of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-2776-9883
Jussi YlikoskiGiellagas Institute for Saami Studies, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Outi VesakoskiDepartment of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite remarkable progress in digital linguistics, extensive databases of geographical language distributions are missing. This hampers both studies on language spatiality and public outreach of language diversity. We present best practices for creating and sharing digital spatial language data by collecting and harmonizing Uralic language distributions as case study. Language distribution studies have utilized various methodologies, and the results are often available as printed maps or written descriptions. In order to analyze language spatiality, the information must be digitized into geospatial data, which contains location, time and other parameters. When compiled and harmonized, this data can be used to study changes in languages' distribution, and combined with, for example, population and environmental data. We also utilized the knowledge of language experts to adjust previous and new information of language distributions into state-of-the-art maps. The extensive database, including the distribution datasets and detailed map visualizations of the Uralic languages are introduced alongside this article, and they are freely available.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualLanguageData ManagementInformation DisseminationMaps as Topic

Identifiers

PMID35675367
PMCPMC9176854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.