MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134190556 · doi:10.24297/jal.v5i3.2860

The Morpho-Syntax of Clausal Negation in Rural Jordanian Arabic

2015· article· en· W2134190556 on OpenAlexaff
Mutasim Al‐Deaibes

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsNegationVerbSyntaxSentenceCovertPsychologyHead (geology)MathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I argue that the Neg particles head their projections, and the negation in a hierarchical representation occurs between TP and VP. In future tense, I argue that the Aux can move to the Neg head just to pick the negation and then the negative particle and the Aux moves to T. I also show that speakers of RJA use different negation constructions depending on the structure and tense of the sentence. For example, the negative particle ma is a preverbal particle used with present and past verbs evenly. The negative particle ma¦-ƒ is a pre and post-verbal particle where ma is a proclitic and -ƒ is an enclitic. This particle is used with present verbs and past verbs. However, when used with present tense verbs, the proclitic ma becomes optional, whereas with past tense verbs the deletion of the proclitic ma results in an ungrammatical sentence. As for copular sentences, the particle miƒ is used to negate verbless copular sentences where there is a covert present tense verb. But, when the copular sentence is formed via a past tense verb, miƒ is no longer used. Instead, the negative construction maâ¦-ƒ is used.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICSSame topicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207