MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242896668 · doi:10.1017/s0008413100001390

Choice and balance in Michif negation

2010· article· en· W4242896668 on OpenAlexaff
H. Christoph Wolfart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationDeontic logicLinguisticsSyntaxContext (archaeology)Balance (ability)AgreementSociologyPhilosophyPsychologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Michif language, while distinct from both Cree and French, combines a largely French-based nominal complex with a largely Cree-based verbal system. The syntax of negation cuts across these dimensions. Declarative sentences in Michif show the Cree-based negatornamôand the French-basednôinterchangeably. (This is also the only context forpas.) Imperatives, by contrast, demand the Cree-basedêkâ (ya) exclusively. In subordinate clauses, Michif permits eitherêkâornô. In Cree, all such constructions require the deontic negatorêkâ. The integration of the two Cree-based negation types and the French-basednoandpasinto a single new system in Michif poses not only problems of constituency and syntactic analysis. It also raises once again the thorny question of balance: Is the imbrication of Cree and French symmetrical, or is one of the two languages dominant?

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistiqueSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207