MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W250031864 · doi:10.1017/s0008413100003042

Wh-agreement in Ojibwe relative clauses: Evidence for CP Structure

2013· article· en· W250031864 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

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsAgreementComputer scienceFocus (optics)Feature (linguistics)Realization (probability)Interrogative wordNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article discusses the morphological and syntactic structure of relative clauses in Ojibwe (Algonquian), in particular their status as wh -constructions. Relatives in this language are full clauses that bear special morphology, show evidence of A′-movement of a wh -operator, and consequently exhibit wh -agreement also found in interrogatives and certain types of focus constructions. Ojibwe shows the possibility of wh -agreement realized on T (in addition to C and v for other languages), as it appears on tense prefixes. We account for the realization of wh -agreement on T in Ojibwe via the mechanism of feature inheritance. We propose that while declarative matrix clauses are canonical in that C introduces φ -features in Ojibwe, the role of C in embedded or wh -contexts is to introduce δ -features (discourse features), such as [ u wh], rather than φ -features. These δ -features can be introduced by C, but are transferred down to T where they spell out as wh -agreement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.222 · 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