MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1433806625 · doi:10.3765/salt.v20i0.2553

Deriving full repetition in Blackfoot with additive focus

2010· article· en· W1433806625 on OpenAlex
Meagan Louie

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredicate (mathematical logic)Event (particle physics)Focus (optics)MorphemeRepetition (rhetorical device)Computer scienceAntecedent (behavioral psychology)LinguisticsNatural language processingPsychologyProgramming languageSocial psychologyPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I argue that Blackfoot’s method of marking repetition, mattsista’- consists of two morphemes, matt- and ista’-. While both encode an additional event, matt-’s event is restricted only to being a focus alternative to the asserted event, leaving predicate identity and temporal precedence to be encoded by ista’-. I propose that ista’-’s event variable requires a linguistically encoded antecedent which matt-’s event acts as, deriving the fact that mattsista’- has a focus-sensitive interpretation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it