MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792726091 · doi:10.1075/li.00001.abd

Relative clauses in Persian

2017· article· en· W2792726091 on OpenAlexaff
Elias Abdollahnejad, Hamideh Marefat

Bibliographic record

VenueLingvisticae Investigationes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersianObject (grammar)Subject (documents)ComplementizerRelative clauseLinguisticsPrefixNatural language processingComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhilosophyWorld Wide WebSyntax

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study is a corpus-based investigation of Persian relative clauses (RCs) used in written mode. 535 instances of RCs occurring in 1634 sentences in 40 editorials of four newspapers published in Iran were spotted and analyzed to determine the frequency of each RC type and the occurrence of certain features including complementizer ke, object marker râ, different representations of the relativised element in the modifying clause, and the status of gap and resumptive pronoun in the RC. The results indicated that subject RCs are the most frequent types. The tendency to use object marker râ before the modifying RC ( Karimi, 2001 ) was confirmed. Besides, some tokens were witnessed contrasting Taghvaipour’s (2005) proposals on the ungrammaticality of resumption in Persian subject ordinary and object free RCs and the necessity of prefix hær- ‘ever’ in all Persian free RCs.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.275
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLingvisticae InvestigationesSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207