MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560894779 · doi:10.21747/2183-9077/rapl2a11

Interpretação de pronomes e aquisição de dependências referenciais em português L2

2016· article· pt· W2560894779 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

VenueRevista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística · 2016
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Linguistic Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates whether L2 learners of (European) Portuguese display asymmetries in their comprehension of reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns, as has been found in L2 English (e.g., Kim, Montrul & Yoon, 2014). Forty-one intermediate learners of L2 Portuguese, who were L1 speakers of Spanish, English and Chinese, completed a truth-value judgement task (Silva, 2015) testing both reflexive and non-reflexive object clitics. The three groups achieved targetlike results in their interpretation of both types of pronouns. These findings indicate that, unlike strong pronouns, clitic pronouns pose no difficulties for learners, which suggests that, as previously shown for L1 acquisition (e.g., McKee, 1992), the grammatical status of pronouns (strong vs. clitic) is also relevant in L2 acquisition.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.242 · 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