MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REFLEXES OF THE TRANSITIVE BE PERFECT IN CANADA AND IN THE US: A COMPARATIVE CORPUS STUDY

2016· article· en· W2592396260 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuri Yerastov

Bibliographic record

VenueDialectologia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransitive relationReflexEconomicsPsychologyMathematicsNeuroscienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper examines the geographical distribution of three reflexes of a transitive be perfect in North America: done, finished, started (e.g.I'm done my dinner).This paper is a corpus study of Canadian Newsstand Complete and Newspaper Source Plus -commercial databases of regional and national mass media in Canada and the United States, respectively.A total of 1217 tokens have been found in Canadian sources, and none in the US ones.Constructional tokens in Canada have been found to be proportionately distributed across provinces and municipalities.Based on these findings, it is argued that the done my dinner construction is a feature that sets Canadian English (as a theoretical abstraction) apart from American English.It is emphasized, though, that the construction has been attested in some dialectal pockets in the US such as Vermont.The geographical restriction of the construction to Canada and selected dialectal areas in the US is hypothesized to have arisen from a Scottish founder effect; evidence from fictional literature and migration studies is presented as support.It is further argued that the construction is a retention in North American English rather than innovation because its earliest occurrence dates back to the middle of the 19 th century.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.022
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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 venueDialectologiaSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207