MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589927163

Affected-topic have : An applicative account

2016· article· en· W2589927163 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth Cowper

Bibliographic record

VenueLinguistica Atlantica · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)Interpretation (philosophy)Head (geology)Argument (complex analysis)Computer scienceSpecifierLinguisticsClass (philosophy)ParallelsNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophyMathematicsNounProgramming languageEngineeringNoun phrase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new analysis of sentences like The tree has a bird's nest in it , and The garden has had many flowers planted in it . I argue that have in these sentences spells out a previously unnoticed applicative head, which occupies a position below T and above the head hosting viewpoint aspect, and whose specifier receives an affected-topic interpretation. This account correctly accounts for the interactions between have and the spellout of other auxiliaries in the clause, and brings the number of distinct applicative heads in English to at least three. Parallels are observed between the behaviour of these three applicative heads and Voice, raising the question of whether Voice and Applicative heads are better thought of as forming a unified class of argument introducers. The account of affected-topic have also lends support to the dynamic theory of phases, and to a postsyntactic, realizational view of morphology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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