MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2483330356 · doi:10.1017/s0008413100017965

Deriving Second Position

2001· article· en· W2483330356 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphemeLinguisticsVerbPosition (finance)Base (topology)AgreementMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An examination of Pashto’s second-position pronominal clitics reveals that they are best regarded as agreement morphemes rather than as arguments of the verb. By base-generating these clitics as heads of agreement projections, their appearance in second position may be derived without recourse to phonological reordering rules, which have been necessary in earlier analyses.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.011

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistiqueSame topicLanguage, Linguistics, Cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207