MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006887957 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n2p331

On the Syntax of Sentential Negation in Yemeni Arabic

2020· article· en· W3006887957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdulrahman Alqurashi, Mukarram Abduljalil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationSyntaxLinguisticsArabicFocus (optics)Computer scienceNatural language processingPolarity (international relations)AgreementPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we explore the system of negation in modern Arabic dialects with a particular focus on Yemeni Arabic (Raymi dialect). The data observed in this dialect incorporate important and novel facts related to the syntax of sentential negation in Arabic. This includes the distribution of negation patterns and the interaction between negation and negative polarity items, which challenges the two widely adopted analyses for sentential negation in Arabic: The Spec-NegP analysis and the discontinuous Neg analysis. In this paper we argue that neither analysis can provide an adequate account of Raymi Arabic facts. Instead, a more recent analysis, the Spilt-Neg analysis, can accommodate them. In addition, in the study we provide empirical evidence in support of the Higher-Neg analysis, wherein Neg is projected higher than T in the derivation.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207