MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025251677 · doi:10.1353/sls.2001.0009

The Construal of Events: Passives in American Sign Language

2001· article· en· W2025251677 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSign language studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLinguisticsGrammarTransitive relationAmerican Sign LanguageConstrual level theoryVerbSign (mathematics)Sign languagePsychologyHistoryComputer sciencePhilosophyMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The possibility of a passive construction existing in ASL has been alluded to from time to time in the literature on ASL grammar, but discussion is infrequent, and the usual conclusion is that a passive does not, in fact, exist. We contend, however, that a particular configuration of ASL grammatical features surrounding an otherwise transitive verb qualifies as a fully passive construction, and that these passives are more frequent in ASL discourse than may have been realized. This discussion continues and expands upon an earlier proposal in which we identify grammatical and functional characteristics of passive constructions in ASL discourse (Janzen, O'Dea, and Shaffer 2000).

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.358 · 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