MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4212872322 · doi:10.1075/cilt.360.03isa

Definite determiners in Romance

2022· book-chapter· en· W4212872322 on OpenAlexaff
Daniela Isac

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDefinitenessPositive-definite matrixMerge (version control)SuffixNounMathematicsComputer scienceLinguisticsCombinatoricsArtificial intelligencePhilosophyPhysicsInformation retrievalEigenvalues and eigenvectors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The definite article in Eastern Romance (ER) is overtly expressed as a suffix on the noun. However, with objects of prepositions (Ps) the definite article can be null, unless the P object is modified, in which case the definite article must be overt. In order to account for this variation in the overtness of the definite article, I propose that definite Ds must undergo M-merge in ER and that the definite D is spelled out overtly only if D M-merges with a head that bears a definiteness ([def]) feature. ER languages display micro-variation with respect to which particular item in the DP can host the definite article, and with respect to whether the definite article in unmodified objects of Ps must, or simply can, be null. Micro-variation is accounted for by (i) the feature content of the Number head, and (ii) whether the M-merge rule applies strictly locally or not.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207