MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241859272 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/vbg3c

Stem Alternation in Tłıchǫ Yatıì Classificatory Verbs: A Cognitive Semantic Account

2020· preprint· en· W4241859272 on OpenAlexaff
Hussein Al-Bataineh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlternation (linguistics)Locative caseVerbLinguisticsFeature (linguistics)Argument (complex analysis)Semantic featureComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the phenomenon of ‘classificatory verbs,’ i.e., a set of motion and positional verbs that show stem alternation depending on the semantic features of one of their arguments. The data is drawn mainly from Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì Multimedia Dictionary, Nicholas Welch’s field notes, and other documentary sources of the language. Tłı̨chǫ classificatory verbs are presented and analyzed in detail. The paper argues that Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì classificatory verbs belong to four semantic subclasses and that these subclasses show a decreasing degree of stem alternations related to argument classification. The inconsistency in stem alternation is triggered by the presence or absence of some semantic features that determine the number of stem allomorphs. Locative verbs are affected by the [COMFORT] feature, and the other three sets are influenced by [TRANSFER], [INITIAL AGENTIVE] and [FINAL AGENTIVE] features. Moreover, the paper outlines a semantic feature geometry that accounts for the observed regularities in classificatory verb stems and their possible variations intra- and cross-linguistically.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.333
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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207