MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134336705 · doi:10.1111/1467-9582.00099

Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase

2003· article· en· W2134336705 on OpenAlexaff
Jila Ghomeshi

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Linguistica · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPluralLinguisticsNounNoun phraseNumeral systemInterpretation (philosophy)Proper nounPhraseDeterminer phraseDefinitenessNominalizationAgreementHistoryMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article proposes that plural marking on nouns in Persian is licensed only if those nouns are contained within D/QPs. This proposal accounts for why plural‐marked nouns are construed as definite unless an overt marker of indefiniteness appears, and why plural marking does not cooccur with numerals unless the noun phrase is definite. It is also shown that the indefinite marker in Persian is quantitative rather than cardinal and is thus associated with higher functional structure within the noun phrase than in English. In English, on the other hand, number marking, the indefinite article, and the grammatical distinction between count and mass nouns, are all realized at the level of NumP. Differences in the interpretation of bare noun phrases in English and Persian are therefore explained by the claim that argument noun phrases must minimally be NumPs in English while Persian lacks this projection altogether.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations166
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia LinguisticaSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207