MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139407196 · doi:10.7202/603081ar

The Load Alternation: Semantic Shifts and Implicit Arguments

2009· article· en· W2139407196 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John S. Lumsden

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredicate (mathematical logic)Argument (complex analysis)Alternation (linguistics)Computer scienceInterpretation (philosophy)Realization (probability)MathematicsLinguisticsProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study argues that verbal expressions like to load, to pack, to pile, etc. are composed of specific substantive concepts and general predicate concepts. All surface expressions involve a derivation that combines these elements. Substantive concepts may also appear in nominal expressions (e.g. a load, a pack, a pile, etc. ). The verbal expressions allow an alternate realization of their argument structure because the interpretation of the substantive concept undergoes a semantic shift so that it combines differently with the pertinent predicate concepts. In one realization, the substantive concept is an implicit theme argument; in the other, it is an implicit location.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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