MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342357266 · doi:10.3765/exabs.v0i0.505

Licensing of argument structures by functional heads: evidence from English have

2010· article· en· W2342357266 on OpenAlexaff
Kyumin Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueLSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)LinguisticsSyntactic structureContext (archaeology)Head (geology)Computer scienceNatural language processingMathematicsPhilosophySyntaxHistoryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a unified syntactic account for the distribution of English have in causative and experiencer constructions. I argue that have is realized in the context of an applicative head (Appl) and an event introducer v, regardless of the type of v. In causative, have is spelled out when Appl merges under vCAUSE, and in experiencer when Appl merges under vBE. The proposed account supports a theoretical claim that argument structure is licensed by functional syntactic structure (Borer 2005); unlike this study, however, it shows that the relevant functional heads are not aspectual heads, but Appl and v.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLSA Annual Meeting Extended AbstractsSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207