MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000673698 · doi:10.1111/1467-9582.00071

Feature representation and <i>–tu(pas)</i> in Quebec French

2000· article· en· W2000673698 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Linguistica · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Representation (politics)LinguisticsComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper offers an analysis of –tu(pas) in Quebec French in terms of feature composition. It is proposed that the features of –tu are checked both at PF and LF. It is argued that –tu represents a PF reflex of an emphatic stress on the last syllable of the prosodic unit V finite + tu and it is a LF reflex of a reinforcer in the internal domain of TP for certain types of mood‐force expressions. However, it is not an inherent illocutionary Force marker. It is illustrated how –tu pas creates an aspectual effect in discourse and is connected to predicates with a built‐in terminal point. Even though –tu pas must sometimes appear obligatorily together in the proposition, the two forms bring a different contribution to the meaning of the sentence. It is argued that –tu is a Force operator identified in the CP domain at LF and pas is a negative marker which is interpretated with a reverse positive polarity when it scopes over –tu .

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.329 · 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