MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468025210 · doi:10.3765/amp.v2i0.3750

Long-Distance Phonotactics as Tier-Based Strictly 2-Local Languages

2016· article· en· W2468025210 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin McMullin, Gunnar Ólafur Hansson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLocalityPhonotacticsDependency (UML)Computer scienceSimple (philosophy)Class (philosophy)Blocking (statistics)Transparency (behavior)MathematicsLinguisticsArtificial intelligencePhonology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper shows that the properties of locality observed for patterns of long-distance consonant agreement and disagreement belong to a well-defined and relatively simple class of subregular formal languages (stringsets) called the Tier-based Strictly 2-Local languages, and argues that analyzing them as such has desirable theoretical implications. Specifically, treating the two elements of a long-distance dependency as adjacent segments on the computationally defined notion of a tier allows for a unified account of locality that necessarily extends to the cross-linguistically variable behavior of neutral segments (transparency and blocking). This result is significant in light of the long-standing and persistent problems that long-distance dependencies have raised for phonological theory, with current approaches still predicting several pathological patterns that have little or no empirical support.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations62
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on PhonologySame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207