MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595296601 · doi:10.7557/12.124

A fresh look at root infinitives from a cross-linguistic perspective

2008· article· en· W1595296601 on OpenAlex

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

VenueNordlyd · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinitiveLinguisticsVerbGermanRoot (linguistics)Perspective (graphical)Nominative casePortugueseModal verbPhenomenonComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we examine the relation between the quantity and quality of the adult input to the child and the intensity of the root-infinitive stage in child language. We compare the languages English, French, German, Italian and Brazilian Portuguese and test whether children produce infinitives more extensively if the verb morphology of their target-languages is ambiguous with respect to the distinction between finite and nonfinite verb forms, or whether the token-frequency of nonfinite verbs in the Input is crucial. We conclude by proposing that the latter is not decisive. Rather, children seem to avoid the use of finite verb forms especially in languages whose verb paradigms are characterized by ambiguities. Root infinitives may thus be viewed as a temporary phenomenon in a phase during which children are learning the inflectional properties of their target language.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0210.004

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.301 · 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