MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783128408 · doi:10.3765/salt.v27i0.4135

Graded (metric) tenses in embedded clauses: The case of South Baffin Inuktitut

2017· article· en· W2783128408 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Midori Hayashi, David Y. Oshima

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDependent clauseLinguisticsNon-finite clauseSuperordinate goalsSuffixUtteranceVerbPresent tensePast tenseMathematicsComputer sciencePsychologyPhilosophySentence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work discusses how tenses in South Baffin Inuknitut (SBI; the Eskimo-Aleut family), which are associated with remoteness specifications, are interpreted in embedded clauses. In SBI dependent clauses, the reference point forremoteness specifications may be, but is not necessarily, relativized (shifted) to a time other than external “now”. For example, while the hodiernal past (marked by suffix -qqau) designates the day of utterance as its domain of coverage, it may not do so in a subordinate clause. Whether an embedded tense may and must be relativized with regard to remoteness depends on four factors: (i) whether the embedded tense is relativized with regard to temporal direction (the past-present-future opposition), (ii) what the type of the subordinate clause is, (iii) what the tense of the superordinate clause is, and (iv) what the tense of the subordinate clause is. The findings suggest that tense systems across languages may contrast not only with respect to under what circumstances shifting of the directional temporal reference point takes place, but also with respect to under what circumstances shifting of the reference point fortemporal remoteness takes place.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic TheorySame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207