MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506081215 · doi:10.1075/la.210.04bli

Assigning reference in clausal nominalizations

2014· book-chapter· en· W2506081215 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 British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNominalizationReferentDependent clauseLinguisticsObject (grammar)Computer scienceFeature (linguistics)Scope (computer science)Relative clauseNatural language processingMathematicsNounSentenceArtificial intelligenceProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nominalizations in Blackfoot can be formed of full clauses, and depending on the properties of the clause from which the nominalization is formed, the referent of the nominalization varies. In this paper I describe the patterns of reference assignment in Blackfoot nominalizations, and develop an analysis to account for the various patterns. I demonstrate that clausal nominalizations partition according to clause type: in matrix clause nominalizations the referent is a grammatical argument (subject or object), but in subordinate clauses it is not (thematic object or oblique). I propose that reference assignment in clausal nominalizations is achieved via an agreement relation with an N feature, and that the two types of nominalizations differ with respect to where this N feature is realized.

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 score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.201 · 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