MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2488750701 · doi:10.1002/9781119105664.ch11

Types of Bound Anaphors

2015· other· en· W2488750701 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Bresnan, Ash Asudeh, Ida Toivonen, Stephen Wechsler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityNorwegianLinguisticsDimension (graph theory)Subject (documents)SentenceSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceNatural language processingMathematicsPhilosophyPure mathematicsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major deficiency of the toy binding theory is that it is based almost entirely on a conception of anaphoric binding that comes from English. Yet it turns out that among systems of bound anaphors across languages, English reflexives constitute a special case. Three dimensions play a central role in anaphoric binding systems. This chapter discusses three dimensions that play a central role in anaphoric binding systems. These three dimensions define a space of possible anaphors. The chapter talks about subjectivity and logophoricity. Reflexive and nonreflexive pronouns in Icelandic illustrate the subjective dimension of the binding space. The Norwegian anaphoric binding system involves both subjectivity and nuclearity: subject anaphors can be nuclear or nonnuclear, and there is an anti-subjective nuclear anaphor. Five sentence structure types that illustrate the basic properties of the anaphoric binding system are described.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207