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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haroon N. Alsager

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.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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