MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118549823 · doi:10.1353/cjl.2007.0014

That Crazy Idea of Hers: The English Double Genitive as Focus Construction

2006· article· en· W2118549823 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Abel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenitive caseDemonstrativeLinguisticsFocus (optics)Relative clauseFunction (biology)SociologyPsychologyPhilosophyNoun

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously, no single analysis has accounted for all three subtypes of the English double genitive construction: the indefinite (a book of John’s), the definite (the book of John’s that you read), and the demonstrative (that book of John’s). Phonetic and pragmatic evidence discussed in the literature—for example, stress and familiarity/importance to the discourse participants—indicates that the demonstrative construction is a focus construction, bringing the possessed item into a prominent position in the discourse. The application of the Focus Hypothesis to all double genitives is empirically supported and is consistent with theoretical considerations having to do with the function of relative clauses and distributional differences between double genitives and standard partitives.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistiqueSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207