MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2488539000 · doi:10.1075/la.210.02rit

Nominalizing Inner Aspect

2014· book-chapter· en· W2488539000 on OpenAlex

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

VenueLinguistik aktuell · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominalizationTransitive relationLinguisticsVerbPrefixObject (grammar)Computer scienceLexicalizationNounPsychologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blackfoot abstract nominalizations are deverbal process/result nominalizations with rather unusual properties: They are never derived from morphologically transitive verbs, and as a consequence do not license a DP or NP object, but if they have a possessor, it must refer to the agent of the source verb. Moreover, they may contain tense and aspect prefixes, but not temporal adverbs. Assuming that they are nominalizations of some clausal functional category, I interpret these facts as evidence of cross-linguistic variation in clausal functional categories. Following Ritter and Wiltschko (2009; to appear), I assume that clausal functional categories in Blackfoot have participant-based, rather than temporal substantive content, and show that abstract nominalizations are nominalized I(nner)-AspP in a language with atemporal functional categories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.199 · 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