MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167770146 · doi:10.1177/0142723705056074

When level-ordering is not used in the formation of English compounds

2005· article· en· W2167770146 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

VenueFirst Language · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)LinguisticsVerbPsychologyMathematicsComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explain the fact that children avoid using regular plurals in modifiers of English compounds by three years, it has been argued that level-ordering constrains all their compounds (e.g., Gordon, 1985). If so, children should avoid regular plurals in ungrammatical compounds like Verb-Object and Verb-Object-er which they use while acquiring grammatical Object-Verb-er compounds (like ‘truck driver’). Children between 3 and 5 years were asked to form novel compounds describing machines acting on objects. The first study included 42 English monolingual children and the second study 36 French-English bilingual children. Both groups of children used significantly more regular plurals in ungrammatical compounds than in grammatical compounds. These results suggest that the avoidance of regular plurals is learned in conjunction with learning the kinds of compounds English allows.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · 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