MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964928248 · doi:10.1075/eurosla.6.06bor

Specificity in Spanish

2006· article· en· W1964928248 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

VenueEUROSLA Yearbook · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyntaxLinguisticsPragmaticsSecond-language acquisitionSemantics (computer science)Contrast (vision)PortugueseInterpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceBrazilian PortugueseInterface (matter)PsychologySemantic interpretationNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent proposals argue that interface areas such as syntax/semantics and syntax/pragmatics are particularly difficult for adult learners, in comparison to purely syntactic phenomena (Sorace 2003, 2004). In contrast, other research shows that L2 learners are able to acquire target representations even when the interpretation is not readily available in the input (Borgonovo, Bruhn de Garavito and Prévost 2005, Dekydtspotter and Sprouse 2001). In this paper we add to the growing literature on the acquisition of interpretational properties by showing that adult L2 learners can acquire knowledge of the syntactic correlates of the semantic notion of specificity in constructions involving topicalisation and null objects in Spanish. The learners’ first language (L1) is Brazilian Portuguese, where specificity does not play the role in these constructions that it plays in Spanish. Results show that learners can go beyond their L1 with respect to the acquisition of interface phenomena, suggesting that native-like grammars are attainable in L2 acquisition.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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