MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545030485

More on the clitic combination puzzle

2010· article· en· W2545030485 on OpenAlexaff
Anahí Alba de la Fuente

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCliticDative caseLinguisticsPluralCatalanMathematicsRomanianPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Languages like Spanish, Catalan and Romanian accept combinations of 1st and 2nd person clitics. However, not all 1st and 2nd person combinations are possible. Although two single clitics can be combined, the combination of two plural clitics results in ungrammaticality (Rivero 2008; Nevins a Savescu 2008). This is true for Spanish and Romanian, but only partially for Catalan. On the other hand, all three languages accept clitic combinations that include a plural dative and a singular non dative and systematically reject combinations that include a singular dative and a plural non-dative. In view of this, I argue that there is a number-case restriction that parallels the Person Case Constraint, first proposed by Bonet (1991), and, in more general terms, I defend that clitic restrictions are drawn by the degree of markedness of the dative clitic with respect to the other clitic in the cluster.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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