MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Information Structure in Asia

2014· book-chapter· en· W2098096715 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis Michaud, Marc Brunelle

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammaticalizationMorphemeLinguisticsForegroundingWord orderComputer scienceNoun phraseVerbVietnameseNounPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The languages of Asia are highly diverse. Rather than attempting a review about information structure (IS) in this huge linguistic area, this chapter provides observations about two languages that differ sharply in terms of how they convey IS. Yongning Na (Sino-Tibetan) is an example of a language with abundant morphemes expressing IS, which stand at different points along the grammaticalization path: some are exclusively used for the marking of IS, others (such as demonstratives) are equally common as IS markers and in another function, and others still are used secondarily to indicate IS, in particular particles indicating the relationship that a noun phrase bears to a verb. Vietnamese (Austroasiatic) makes little use of such morphemes, and relies greatly on word order and on a range of passive-like structures. Along with key morphosyntactic facts, this chapter addresses the issue of how intonation contributes to foregrounding and backgrounding strategies in these two tonal languages.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation→French-language works237,207→