MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the Morphosyntactic Reflexes of Information Structure in the Ergative Patterning of Inuit Language

2017· book-chapter· en· W2915129548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsErgative caseLinguisticsInformation structureOblique caseScope (computer science)Computer scienceHead (geology)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophyProgramming languageBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter argues – closely following the insights of Berge (2011) – that the ergative clause structure of the Inuit language is conditioned by information structure properties, more precisely by its topic comment properties. It articulates a formal model where the morphosyntactic properties result from this information structure trigger. Furthermore it shows that not only does the model correctly account for the split case and agreement properties of the Inuit language, but also other relevant properties discussed in the literature, i.e., scope properties of objects and aspect. It is also argued that objects in this language are introduced through an applicative head (Basilico 2012), after which they either topicalize or get assigned oblique case.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.189 · 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