MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012605821 · doi:10.1080/07268602.2010.498805

Determiners in Niuean

2010· article· en· W2012605821 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

VenueAustralian Journal of Linguistics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefinitenessNoun phraseLinguisticsFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceDeterminer phraseEncoding (memory)Conjunction (astronomy)Argument (complex analysis)SyntaxPhraseNounArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingVerb phraseSemantic propertyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the issue of whether there are determiners in the Polynesian language Niuean. In the literature, determiners are viewed as having three main functions: allowing a nominal phrase to serve as an argument, encoding definiteness and specificity, and providing referentiality. The left peripheral elements in the Niuean noun phrase are detailed, and it is argued that case in conjunction with a feature for proper/common serves the first function, that definiteness and specificity are not encoded in Niuean except in a secondary manner, and that referentiality is provided by number, which is distributed across several items in the noun phrase. It is demonstrated that while definiteness and specificity are not contrastive features in Niuean, a feature encoding focused and new information is central to the Niuean nominal system. Niuean thus supports a view of determiners that allows them to vary in their semantic and featural content.

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)0.006
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.239 · 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