A influência dos antecedentes disponíveis e não-disponíveis da anáfora “ele(a) mesmo(a)” em português brasileiro (PB)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we investigated the processing of coreferential relations in Brazilian Portuguese (BP) to understand how this process develops in the human mind. The goal was to investigate how Principle A and Principle B of the Binding Theory (CHOMSKY, 1986) operate in the interpretation of coreferential anaphoric elements in sentences with reflexive pronouns. Using a self-paced reading paradigm, we replicated an experiment carried out by Oliveira et al. (2012), which investigated the influence of available and unavailable antecedents in the processing of the anaphoric element “a si mesmo(a).” In the present experiment, we only replaced the anaphoric word “a si” by “ele(a).” The goal was to investigate if the processing of the first element will be affected by Principle B or A. In the first case, if the pronoun “ele” is be bound to an antecedent out of the anaphora’s scope; in the second case, if the domain or if the following segment “mesmo(a)” is processed, there would be a reassessment of the initial decision from the interpretative process that forces application of Principle A. The results corroborate Nicol and Swinney’s (1989) study, and Oliveira, Leitão and Henrique’s (2012) study about Brazilian Portuguese. In both studies, the anaphora was related to the antecedent, i.e., the nearest element in relation to the Binding Theory.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".