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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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