MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793549105 · doi:10.1075/slcs.192.03jan

know and understand in ASL

2018· book-chapter· en· W2793549105 on OpenAlexaff
Terry Janzen

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in language companion series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyLinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Topic constructions in ASL are understood to be composed of information identifiable to the addressee that serves as the reference point from which to view the comment or comments immediately following it. This study compares the instances of use in a corpus of conversational ASL of KNOW and UNDERSTAND as lexical verbs and their grammaticalized form and function when they appear as topic markers, and with know as a discourse marker. Topic phrases introduced by know tend to have a wider domain as an identifiable reference point rather than a specific entity or event within the signer’s and addressee’s shared knowledge. Topic phrases introduced by understand tend to introduce an idea that the signer wishes to set as a reference point.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in language companion seriesSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207