MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783099878 · doi:10.3765/salt.v27i0.4113

Negative polarity items: a case for questions as licensers

2017· article· en· W2783099878 on OpenAlex
Bernhard Schwarz

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSyntaxPolarity (international relations)VirtueLinguisticsArgument (complex analysis)Computer sciencePsychologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing analyses of NPI licensing in questions instantiate two differentapproaches. One approach holds that questions are NPI licensers in their own right(Kadmon & Landman 1990; Krifka 1995, 2003; van Rooy 2003); the other holdsthat, in virtue of their syntax, questions host silent expressions that do the licensingfor them, such as a silent version of exclusive only (Nicolae 2013, 2015) or negationnot (Guerzoni & Sharvit 2014). Based one a pattern of NPI licensing in alternativequestions, this paper presents a case for the former approach. Specifically, it offersan argument for the analysis developed in Krifka 1995, 2003 and van Rooy 2003,which centrally refers to questions’ information theoretic entropy (Shannon 1948).

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.284 · 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