Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which syntactic models, semantic models or combined models incorporating both syntactic and semantic elements explain the language used by learners has been much researched. This study assumes that there is an innate language faculty which plays a fundamental part in a native speaker’s acquisition of their first language. In particular it will focus on the use of reflexives, a highly abstruse area which is not part of formal English teaching. However, posited syntactic models of how reflexives are used and interpreted do not seem to fully explain native speaker intuitions. This discontinuity between the syntactic models and the results from data obtained from informants has also become apparent in the research into Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Thus, this research will look at a model which combines the syntactic theory of movement at Logical Form with the semantic theory that pronouns and reflexives can be described in terms of logophoricity. Testing will then be undertaken of native speakers of English as well as native speakers of Mandarin Chinese to see if this model can account for their intuitions about English reflexive pronoun
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".