Bibliographic record
Abstract
Algonquian languages distinguish between proximate and obviative third persons.This paper claims that wherever two or more proximate third person occurs in a given derivation, these are necessarily interpreted as coreferential.Consequently, only one proximate referent is permitted per derivation.This requirement is highly ranked in the grammar, overriding the universally-familiar mechanisms of determining pronominal reference formalized by Binding Theory.Weak crossover constructions are examined as a case in point-in a subset of the Algonquian constructions examined, the expected weak crossover effects (disjoint reference between a wh-phrase and a pronominal) do not appear.In this same subset of cases, coreference is enforced by the requirement to maintain a single proximate referent per derivation.Weak crossover effects appear in cases where this requirement does not hold.This analysis permits an account of the absence of crossover effects in Algonquian which does not appeal to the argument that Algonquian differs structurally from so-called 'configurational languages'.Possibly, the demands of the proximate/obviative system make the grammar of Algonquian appear more divergent than it is.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".