MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898393189 · doi:10.3765/salt.v28i0.4439

Keep 'only' strong

2018· article· en· W2898393189 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Alonso‐Ovalle, Aron Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationFrench hornCovertArgument (complex analysis)Operator (biology)LinguisticsMathematicsModalModal operatorPure mathematicsCalculus (dental)PhilosophyPsychologyModal logicMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As defined in Horn 1969, only (p) presupposes p. von Fintel & Iatridou (2007) note, however, that only (have to p) may presuppose that p is possible, rather than necessary, and propose revising the analysis of only to weaken its contribution. Building on Ippolito 2007, we show that this revision predicts interpretations which are too weak in data involving plurals and negation. A paradox thus arises: Horn’s only is too strong in some cases, but required in others. To resolve the paradox, we maintain Horn’s only, but introduce an external source of weakening that is not always available: in von Fintel and Iatridou’s modal environment, the argument of only is weakened by a covert operator (AT LEAST, Crnic ̆ 2011; Schwarz 2004) that is blocked in the problematic cases involving plurals and negation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.021
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic TheorySame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207