MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088083909 · doi:10.33137/twpl.v39i0.28778

The meaning of antipassive: Evidence from Australian languages

2017· article· en· W3088083909 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Working Papers in Linguistics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)MorphemeMeaning (existential)Scope (computer science)LinguisticsInterpretation (philosophy)Event (particle physics)Object (grammar)Computer scienceHistoryPhilosophyEpistemologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing semantic analyses of the antipassive morpheme capture scope facts but are unable to handle the non-culminating event reading which is found in Australian languages (among others). I develop a meaning for the antipassive that is able to capture this reading, and also account for the unexpected high-volitionality reading also found in some Australian languages. Finally, I turn to a typologically rare situation in two languages in which the antipassive construction is interpreted as denoting a culminated event with a fully affected object. I provide an account for this and show that there are formal similarities between the two kinds of antipassive, which may explain why the antipassive operator is used in the latter case even though it produces an interpretation of events which is apparently opposite to the more common non-culminating reading.

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)0.016
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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.253 · 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