MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807096580 · doi:10.63317/3x9fjezosbv9

Building a Constraint Grammar Parser for Plains Cree Verbs and Arguments

2018· article· en· W2807096580 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Schmirler, Antti Arppe, Trond Trosterud, Lene Antonsen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParsingGrammarConstraint (computer-aided design)Natural language processingProgramming languageLinguisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the development and application of a Constraint Grammar parser for the Plains Cree language.The focus of this parser is the identification of relationships between verbs and arguments.The rich morphology and non-configurational syntax of Plains Cree make it an excellent candidate for the application of a Constraint Grammar parser, which is comprised of sets of constraints with two aims: 1) the disambiguation of ambiguous word forms, and 2) the mapping of syntactic relationships between word forms on the basis of morphological features and sentential context.Syntactic modelling of verb and argument relationships in Plains Cree is demonstrated to be a straightforward process, though various semantic and pragmatic features should improve the current parser considerably.When applied to even a relatively small corpus of Plains Cree, the Constraint Grammar parser allows for the identification of common word order patterns and for relationships between word order and information structure to become apparent.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.012

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207