MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2494315717 · doi:10.1075/tsl.86.10det

Determining the semantics of Inuktitut postbases

2009· book-chapter· en· W2494315717 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

VenueTypological studies in language · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphemeLinguisticsSyntaxInflectionAffixProblem of universalsProperty (philosophy)Semantics (computer science)MorphophonologyMathematicsComputer sciencePhilosophyPhonologyProgramming languageEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines a number of properties of Inuktitut postbases, which are affixal morphemes that appear between the root and inflection. These morphemes are the source of polysynthesis in Inuktitut, since they allow the word to expand in principle indefinitely. A number of authors have pointed out that these elements are quite abstract in meaning. We argue that this property stems from the fact that they are all functional morphemes (Harley and Noyer 2000), i.e., grammatical elements. Their ordering is based on hierarchical relations which are determined by universals (Fortescue 1980; Cinque 1999). We show that both the affixal nature and abstract semantics of these elements have independent sources and result from general properties of the syntax, not from individual and idiosyncratic lexical specification.

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 categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.214 · 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