MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043221443 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v10n5p179

The Syntax of Yes/No Questions in Modern Standard Arabic

2020· article· en· W3043221443 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPrince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
KeywordsInterrogativeSyntaxComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)LinguisticsArabicSyntactic structureNatural language processingMandarin ChineseInterrogative wordModern Standard ArabicPolarity (international relations)Artificial intelligenceRange (aeronautics)Programming languagePhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interrogative structures have been investigated in wide range of languages including but not limited to English, Italian, French, and Mandarin Chinese. Thus, this paper presents an analysis of the syntactic structure of yes/no questions based on feature-checking analysis (i.e., [Q], phi-features, [T], [Polarity], and EPP). First, I briefly discuss the feature-checking analysis in the declarative clauses in Modern Standard Arabic. Then, I analyze the interrogative structure in main clauses (hal, ʔa-) and in embedded clauses (idhaa) in MSA. Finally, this paper displays and discusses the findings showing that there are three types of feature-checking in yes/no particles in Modern Standard Arabic.

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)0.158
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.158
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.240 · 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