MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506245779 · doi:10.5334/gjgl.49

Covert partial <i>wh</i>-movement and the nature of derivations

2016· article· en· W2506245779 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

VenueGlossa a journal of general linguistics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterrogativeCovertMovement (music)LinguisticsPsychologyInterrogative wordPhraseSpecifierCommunicationCognitive psychologyNoun phrasePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wh-movement is commonly thought to be caused by a syntactic probing operation, initiated by an interrogative probe on C, which triggers subsequent movement to the specifier of C. In this paper I argue that at least English covert wh-movement cannot be described in these terms. I argue instead that covert movement can target positions other than interrogative C, and that this movement is triggered by the interpretational needs of the wh-phrase itself, rather than the formal needs of interrogative C. Evidence will come from the interaction of English multiple wh-questions with intervention effects: I document a pattern of intervention effects that is explained only if English in-situ wh-phrases can be interpreted at LF in non-interrogative intermediate positions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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