MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485158619 · doi:10.1075/cilt.318.08tro

Directed motion in Medieval French

2011· book-chapter· en· W2485158619 on OpenAlex
Michelle Troberg

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

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotion (physics)HistoryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces new data showing that Medieval French patterns like a satellite-framed language in that directed motion events can be expressed via a manner verb and a PP complement denoting a telic goal. This contrasts sharply with contemporary French, a typical verb-framed language, in which directed motion is encoded via path verbs with manner as a separate adjunct phrase. Typologically, the data is consistent with a number of other argument structure properties that characterise Medieval French as satellite-framed much like English and Dutch. I argue that the source of variation between Medieval and present-day French resides in a difference in the extended functional projection of prepositional elements. While Medieval French has an active functional projection that permits simple prepositions to encode path, present-day French does not. The analysis diverges from recent accounts of the directed motion construction in which the locus of variation is situated in a macro-parameter.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.244 · 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