MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744715486 · doi:10.1515/probus-2016-0018

Negative concord in Quebec French

2017· article· en· W2744715486 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

VenueProbus · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationLinguisticsMeaning (existential)Relation (database)AgreementQuantifier (linguistics)Expression (computer science)Dependency (UML)Subject (documents)CausativePsychologyPhilosophyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is argued that there are two types of asymmetric negative concord languages: in languages like Spanish and Italian, negative concord results from a purely formal agreement relation between the negation and a negative concord item. In Quebec French, in addition to this purely formal licensing, there is a negative dependency relation between both items, which form two segments of a discontinuous negative quantifier. This accounts for the following differences. While Spanish, Italian and Quebec French reject negative concord between a subject negative expression and the negation, in Quebec French, negative concord with the negation becomes possible when the clause contains a postverbal negative expression in addition to a preverbal one. Moreover, in Quebec French, but not in Spanish or Italian, negative concord is blocked across a quantifier meaning

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · 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