MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176676886 · doi:10.1111/lnc3.12080

Remarks on the Experimental Turn in the Study of Scalar Implicature, Part II

2014· article· en· W3176676886 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Linguistics Compass · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersEuropean Research CouncilAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsImplicatureInterpretabilityPhenomenonScalar (mathematics)EpistemologyComputer scienceLinguisticsPragmaticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Part I, we have introduced two of the main approaches to scalar implicature: the Gricean approach and the grammatical approach. We have argued that although they rely on conceptually different views about the phenomenon, they share various insights, and we argued that their empirical differences were more subtle than what one may have expected. In this second part of this review paper, we will sample some experimental results with two goals in mind. First, we will exemplify some simplifications that are found in the literature and examine the consequences of these simplifications on the interpretability of experimental results. Second, we will suggest future directions that the experimental turn might consider exploring, directions that seem to us to have the potential to illuminate the richness of the competing theories and the potential to dissociate or improve them.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.238 · 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