MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3094991512 · doi:10.1002/9781118788516.sem132

Matrix and Embedded Presuppositions

2020· other· en· W3094991512 on OpenAlexaff
Raj Singh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresuppositionSentenceGeneralizationProjection (relational algebra)Matrix (chemical analysis)Filter (signal processing)LinguisticsMathematicsEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyAlgorithmComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The presuppositions of embedded constituents tend to become presuppositions of the matrix sentence in which they are contained. Different approaches to presupposition projection provide different resources for describing and explaining this (and related) generalizations. An important architectural distinction that divides frameworks is whether the projection mechanism can filter presuppositions such that embedded presuppositions appear in modified form at the root. Theories that can filter a presupposition need a mechanism for “unfiltering” it to account for the generalization that embedded presuppositions tend to be inherited at the root, even when the projection component delivers a filtered presupposition to the root. Theories that cannot filter a presupposition can account for the generalization but not for the observation that presuppositions can be filtered. We propose a synthesis that generally allows presuppositions to be filtered, and that connects unfiltering with accommodation mechanisms that keep track of the presuppositions of sentences bounded by the matrix sentence and embedded triggering sentence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.015
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing Techniques→French-language works237,207→