MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012571544 · doi:10.1086/382736

The Morphosyntax of Halkomelem Lexical Suffixes

2003· article· en· W2012571544 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

VenueInternational Journal of American Linguistics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverbialArgument (complex analysis)LinguisticsNounOblique caseLexical itemTheme (computing)Computer sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Halkomelem has a hundred lexical suffixes. They are widely used on verbs, where they serve the role of theme or oblique. The commonly accepted view of lexical suffixation is that it does not alter core argument structure, as noun incorporation does, but rather adds an adverbial or adjectival specification to the stem. This paper presents evidence, based on interactions with applicatives, causatives, and reflexives, supporting instead the claim that lexical suffixes can in fact occupy argument positions in initial structure. Lexical suffixation, because it can internalize a core argument, affects argument structure. Thus, lexical suffixation is like compounding noun incorporation and can be ordered with other argument structure‐altering rules.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.250 · 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