MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750256139 · doi:10.1075/sibil.51.02whi

Pro-drop then and now

2016· article· en· W2750256139 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in bilingualism · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNull (SQL)Null hypothesisNull modelRule-based machine translationMathematicsSubject (documents)PsychologyLinguisticsCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsData miningCombinatoricsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an overview and analysis of changing perspectives on null subjects in L2 research. Three phases of research are identified, focusing on: (i) the issue of parameter resetting, conceived in terms of the null subject parameter as originally formulated; (ii) the relationship of null subjects to properties of functional features and associated morphology; (iii) discourse constraints on the realization of null and overt subjects. Conflicting data and theories are discussed, touching on the extent of transfer of null subjects from the L1, whether a parameter is involved, and what other properties might explain the distribution of null subjects in L2 grammars. Despite the lack of consensus, investigation of null subjects has provided fruitful insights into the nature of interlanguage grammars.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.331 · 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