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

Imperatives and evidentiality in Innu

2017· book-chapter· en· W2594017979 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.087
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