MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2488732992 · doi:10.1075/la.210.01mat

Nominalizations in Ojibwe

2014· book-chapter· en· W2488732992 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 Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominalizationTransitive relationLinguisticsNounVerbComputer scienceNatural language processingMathematicsPhilosophyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to account for nominalization processes in Ojibwe including agent and non-agent nominalizations. I make two main claims: (1) in Ojibwe (even) simple nouns (result nominals, cf. Grimshaw 1990) have internal (verbal) structure; (2) agent nominals in Ojibwe are not exactly nominalizations: they are more like full clauses (with no nominal projection on top of the CP). Theoretically, I address for Ojibwe the puzzle mentioned by Harley (2009) for English nominalizations: meaning shifts from event to result readings do not affect the internal morphological structure of the nominalization. In Ojibwe, it will be argued that, although many nominalizations have transitive morphology, the transitive verb that is imported into the nominalization process is devoid of an internal and of an external argument, creating result nominalization rather than event nominalization.

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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.202 · 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