MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739255923 · doi:10.5430/elr.v6n3p1

On The Implicit Negation via Subjunctive Mood

2017· article· en· W2739255923 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

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationLinguisticsVerbMoodConflationMeaning (existential)PsychologyMathematicsPhilosophySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive research on negation in linguistics has not only led to new theories but also dictated a range of ideas.In the frame of this article an effort is made to reveal semantic-functional traits of verb forms from a modal perspective. The basis of the study is mood-negation correlation. The formal description of the categories allows us to see the immediate differences of negation and changeability of form and meaning in different mood forms.The corpus at our data shows that the semantic value of implicit negative constructions is context-driven as a result of the close interaction of negation with modal categories. In the paradigm of the subjunctive form some affirmative constructions come into use as negatively charged linguistic items. Moreover, mood categories conflate under the rubric of realis - irrealis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
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 score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.333 · 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