Bibliographic record
Abstract
The articles assembled in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique contribute to our understanding of the role of asymmetric relations at the interfaces. Asymmetric relations have privileged status in the syntactic, phonological, and morphological derivation of linguistic expressions (see for example the articles in Di Sciullo 2003). Interfaces are representations that must meet legibility conditions imposed by external systems. According to the Strong Minimalist Thesis (Chomsky 2001), language is an optimal solution to interface conditions, in that language is an optimal way to link sound and meaning. Questions arise regarding the properties of the interface representations that make them optimally legible by external systems. These properties could very well be abstract, and remote from the perceptual systems, and could bear on the form of interface representations, rather than on the interpretation of their parts. A strong hypothesis in this regard is that asymmetric relations are core properties of the relations derived by the grammar (Chomsky 1981, 1995, 2001; Kayne 1994; Moro 2000; Di Sciullo 2005; Zwart 2006). From this perspective, asymmetry is a pervasive property of derivations and interface representations; it is thus expected to be a property of different structural relations, such as the relation between a displaced constituent and its copy, the relation between an anaphor and its antecedent, the relation between a head and its dependent, and more generally, the relation between the constituents of a configuration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".