MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760638780 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n6p138

A Functional Study of Lexical Conversion within Modern Chinese Nominal Group

2017· article· en· W2760638780 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Weiwei Zhang, Manliang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsNominal groupGrammarVerbPerspective (graphical)Lexical functional grammarGroup (periodic table)Computer scienceChinese grammarPart of speechNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenon of lexical conversion within modern Chinese nominal group is often presented in ancient Chinese grammar. For many years, there have been earnest discussions in China about how we can better study the Chinese nominal group from alternative dimensions, e.g. cognition, pragmatics, multi-category words, word-class shift as well as functional perspective, but few pay attention to the lexical conversion from perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). As the SFL itself is “a problem-oriented theory” (Huang, 2006), to apply this theory to explain some certain language phenomena merits serious consideration. This paper is based on the Cardiff Grammar, an important model of SFL and the purpose is to explore the semantic and syntactic function in lexical conversion within modern Chinese nominal group. Through the contrastive study in light of the Cardiff Grammar, the Chinese nominal group can be functionally used as a Main Verb, a Main Verb Extension (MEx) and a prepositional group (pgp).

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207