MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013539348 · doi:10.1017/s0959269502000145

The complementizer C with the WH-word <i>quo</i> in a Franco-Ontarian vernacular of south-western Ontario

2002· article· en· W2013539348 on OpenAlexaffabout
Moshé Starets

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of French Language Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplementizerVernacularStatus quoLinguisticsPhraseHistorySarcasmFeature (linguistics)SociologyPolitical scienceSyntaxPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we will examine the Complementizer Phrase (CP) involving the element quo in the oral expression of a small French community in the south-western tip of the province of Ontario in Canada, in an area historically known as La Petite-Côte (LPC) where French has been spoken for three centuries now. We will examine the various types of sentences in LPC that feature a CP: free relatives, partial direct questions, indirect questions and full relatives. The Complementizer in LPC can be simple or composite; it is more complex than its standard French (SF) counterpart. We will examine the various allomorphs of each one of these Complementizers. Contrary to Standard French, LPC French, like colloquial French and other French Canadian vernaculars, allows doubly filled CP. The aim of this article is to contribute to the descriptive information available about French Canadian varieties.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of French Language StudiesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207