MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016755393 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n4p21

The Pronominal Element in Arabic Copular Clauses

2020· article· en· W3016755393 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bader Alharbi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredicative expressionLinguisticsNounPredicate (mathematical logic)AmbiguityElement (criminal law)Identity (music)Dependent clauseArabicComputer scienceDeterminerRealization (probability)Relative clauseMathematicsPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceSentenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Arabic, a pronominal element (PE) (Note 1) appears in almost all copular clause types, specifically the specificational, identificational, and identity clauses, as well as in clauses with a post-copular definite description. It is obligatory in an identity clause consisting of proper nouns and is otherwise optional. However, the PE cannot be used in Arabic predicational clauses. This paper examines the nature of this PE, why it is illicit in the predicational clause and licit in all other types, and why it is obligatory only in the identity clause consisting of proper nouns and is otherwise optional. It suggests that the PE is a realization of the F head (the identity predicate) in the structure of the identity clause. The illicit use of the PE in the predicational clause follows from the presence of predicative expressions in this type of clause. Lastly, it is shown that the PE is obligatory only in an identity clause involving proper nouns to avoid ambiguity, and is otherwise optional.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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