MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Applicatives

2008· article· en· W4239851855 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Linguistics Compass · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsObject (grammar)Computer scienceSubject (documents)Movement (music)LinguisticsArgument (complex analysis)VerbMinimalist programPhraseDependent clauseSyntaxNon-finite clauseElement (criminal law)Position (finance)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingSentencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An applicative is a syntactic element adding an extra object to a clause. In some cases, the direct and applied objects are generated within a small clause; in others, the applied object is generated outside the main verb phrase. Symmetric applicatives allow either object to move to the subject position of a passive clause; asymmetric applicatives allow only one object to move. Within Minimalist theory, syntactic movement is constrained by the Minimal Link Condition (MLC). In the simplest case, the MLC allows only the highest argument to move to subject position. However, the lower object can do so if the higher object is ineligible for movement, or if the lower one moves over it via a syntactic escape hatch. A surprising interaction of binding and movement provides independent evidence for this analysis. A new phase‐based approach seeks to illuminate the nature of syntactic domains by connecting movement in applicatives with their semantic and phonological properties.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.221 · 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