MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575948774 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n1p163

Pro-drop in Standard Arabic

2017· article· en· W2575948774 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflectionLinguisticsVerbSentenceSubject (documents)Computer sciencePhonological ruleMathematicsPhonologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correlation between Pro-drop and the nature of verbal morphology is a universal principle. This syntactic phenomenon has been parameterized on the basis of verb inflection. Rich verbal inflection has been advocated to allow pro-drop subject. On contrast, if a language structure maintains a low level of verbal morphology, pro will not be dropped. This paper comes to show that Standard Arabic (SA) is a partial pro-drop language. It has null subject even with rich verbal inflection structure. Nonetheless, the paper shows that in some forms of imperative sentence that have poor verbal inflection, but the subject is optional. On the other side, and on the basis of minimalism, pro is asserted to have features that must be checked in the course of derivation. These features are case and agreement that can be valued at Specifier-head configuration to pro. The process of checking optimally tries to draw evidence for the minimum level of morpho-syntactic features that pro in SA carries.

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)0.178
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.259 · 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