MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Markers of futurity and aspect in West Greenlandic

2014· book-chapter· en· W2496149499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naja Blytmann Trondhjem

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Originally Inuit languages had a temporal opposition between future and non-future. Over time, Iñupiaq has evolved an opposition between past, present, and future, while Inuktitut and West Greenlandic (WG) have retained the future/non-future opposition. This chapter will show that it is incorrect to describe WG as tenseless; WG has grammaticalized tense affixes. There are five such future-tense affixes: -ssa ‘future’, -niar ‘inevitable future’, -jumaar ‘vague future’, -ssamaar ‘planned future’, and -ler ‘near future’. The first three also have modal meanings: -ssa ‘should’, -niar ‘intention’, -jumaar ‘promise’. While, ssamaar has only one meaning, -ler has an additional three: two in the inner phasal aspect (‘begin’ and ‘be about to’), and one in outer phasal aspect (‘be about to’). This chapter shows that it is necessary to pay close attention to morphological structure, and to allow for the possibility that tense can be expressed by derivational affixes.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0070.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207