MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204627959 · doi:10.5430/elr.v4n4p44

Documentation of discourse-related Particles in North Hail Arabic

2015· article· en· W2204627959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Murdhy R. Alshamari

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvidentialityLinguisticsPragmaticsCliticSyntaxArabicVariety (cybernetics)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Semantics (computer science)SociologyPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research investigates a range of discourse particles used in North Hail Arabic, a variety spoken in Saudi Arabia. It delves into their pragmatic functions related to discourse. Investigating 17 discourse particles, the current research argues that they are associated with specific discourse/pragmatics functions: speaker-positive, speaker-negative, evidentiality, and discourse coherence. Additionally, the current research introduces a general syntactic analysis for these particles, assuming that they are heads, associated with discourse features, have their own functional projections and are base-generated in the left periphery. It shows that these particles are different in terms of whether they are able to be resumed by a pronominal clitic or not. For this, the study attributes this behaviour to whether the given particle has a set of Φ-features (phi-features) or not. All in all, the current research is meant to bring these particles to the fore, suggesting them as a rich area for different linguistic domains (i.e., syntax, semantics, pragmatics, etc.).

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)0.004
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207