MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594017979 · doi:10.1075/slcs.184.02bar

Imperatives and evidentiality in Innu

2017· book-chapter· en· W2594017979 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne‐Marie Baraby

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in language companion series · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvidentialityTypologyLinguisticsFocus (optics)HistoryPsychologyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Languages with a rich morphology such as Innu, an aboriginal language of Canada, which clearly mark phenomena that are less obvious in analytic languages, have contributed significantly to our understanding of language in several domains. Innu is of particular interest for the typology of imperatives because the imperative in this language is more than just a grammatical mood: it has three different paradigms of specialized imperative verbal forms with specific semantic overtones. The so-called indirect imperative paradigm is the focus of the present chapter. It is a type of absential imperative, where the action is expected to be performed in the absence of the speaker. We argue that it actually expresses evidentiality. It is a type of imperative which is not very well-known: it seems to be rare cross-linguistically and difficult to demonstrate. The analysis of the Innu imperative here sheds new light on the issue.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in language companion seriesSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207