MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789774006 · doi:10.3765/amp.v5i0.4246

Weighted scalar constraints capture the typology of loanword adaptation

2018· article· en· W2789774006 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Hsu, Karen Jesney

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on Phonology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyOptimality theoryVocabularyComputer scienceRanking (information retrieval)LinguisticsConstraint (computer-aided design)Focus (optics)Scalar (mathematics)Natural language processingLoanwordGrammarMathematicsArtificial intelligenceSociologyPhonologyPhilosophyGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses three basic ways in which loanwords pattern differently than native vocabulary, with a particular focus on the implicational relationships that hold among generalizations that apply at different degrees of nativization. We argue that the overall typology and the effects of the core-periphery structure are best modeled if constraints are weighted as in Harmonic Grammar (Legendre, Miyata & Smolensky 1990), and violation scores are scaled according to degree of nativization. The implicational patterns of repair versus non-repair are predicted from basic patterns of interaction among scalar constraints, obviating the need for the kinds of ranking metaconditions required in ranked-constraint alternatives.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Meetings on PhonologySame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207