MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Expression of Genericity in Child Language

2016· book· en· W2567251520 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Teresa Pérez‐Leroux

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpression (computer science)LinguisticsSentenceComputer scienceComprehensionGrammarNatural language processingExploitPsychologyArtificial intelligenceCommunicationProgramming languagePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generic expressions refer to species or kinds of objects, rather than individuals. As generics are encoded in various forms that also have other meanings, and differ across languages, children need to learn which morphosyntactic markers are compatible with generic interpretations. The evidence suggests that children do not need to actively learn generic meanings, but rather, they need to learn to restrict generic interpretations to specific forms of the target grammar. In spontaneous speech children use generic expressions appropriately, early and robustly. In comprehension, while initially overgeneralizing generic interpretations beyond target forms, children also demonstrate that they can exploit the complex relationships between sentence structure and generic meanings; and can integrate the relevant pragmatic and grammatical cues in understanding generic expressions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207