MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3067154598 · doi:10.3765/salt.v30i0.4836

A new case of low modality: Goal PPs*

2021· article· en· W3067154598 on OpenAlexaff
Fabienne Martin, Margaret Grant, Christopher Piñón, Florian Schäfer

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsCircumstantial evidenceLinguisticsVerbModalModal verbComputer scienceMeaning (existential)Modality (human–computer interaction)InferenceTheme (computing)GermanCognitive psychologyNatural language processingArtificial intelligencePhilosophyPsychologyEpistemologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides experimental evidence from German and English against the view that a goal to/zu-PP in combination with a motion verb designates a goal that is reached. We propose that to/zu have a modal meaning, responsible for the defeasibility of the inference that the goal is reached. We argue that the type of subjects (intentional agent vs. accidental agent or theme) determines the flavor of the (necessity) modal encoded by the preposition (teleological or circumstantial), which allows us to account for the observed variation in the strength of the inference with the type of subjects and the type of verbs.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic TheorySame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207