MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102274873 · doi:10.7202/603186ar

Structural Markedness in Formal Features: Deriving Interpretability

2009· article· en· W2102274873 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Susana Béjar

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)MarkednessInterpretabilitySyntaxRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceNatural language processingLinguisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that the internal structure of formal features plays an important role in the syntax and can account for complex surface phenomena which are otherwise difficult to explain. The hierarchical representation of morphosyntactic features developed in Harley 1994, Ritter 1997 and Harley and Ritter 1998 is incorporated into minimalist checking theory (Chomsky 1998). It is proposed that feature interpretability can be understood as a condition on configurations licensed by the feature geometry. Two principles governing the interaction between feature structure and core syntactic operations are proposed. The first stipulates that only structurally marked features may satisfy a probe. The second permits checking between non-identical features if they are in an implicational relation. Agreement asymmetries in Georgian and Standard Arabic are examined and are shown to be derived from the aforementioned principles.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207