MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283396670 · doi:10.3765/sp.15.6

Keep only strong

2022· article· en· W4283396670 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSemantics and Pragmatics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovertMeaning (existential)InferenceOperator (biology)Scope (computer science)French hornLinguisticsExtension (predicate logic)Computer scienceMathematicsEpistemologyArtificial intelligencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Horn (1969) proposed that [[only]](p) presupposes that the prejacent p is true, von Fintel & Iatridou (2007) showed that the expected prejacent inference is not observed when a necessity modal occurs in the scope of only: [[only]](□p) may convey that p is possible, rather than necessary. What is the mechanism behind the surprisingly weak inference? The approach in von Fintel & Iatridou 2007 is to revise the analysis of only itself to weaken its contribution. In this paper, however, we argue that Horn’s only is correct after all, and introduce a source of weakening separate from only. In particular, in von Fintel & Iatridou’s modal environment, a phonetically null operator (AT LEAST; Crnic̆ 2011, Schwarz 2005) occurs in the scope of only to weaken the presupposed prejacent. Much recent attention has been paid to covert operators which strengthen meaning, in particular a covert EXH with a meaning similar to only (e.g. Chierchia 2006, Fox 2007, Chierchia et al. 2012). A key consequence of our analysis is that natural language incorporates a covert weakening operator, as well. EARLY ACCESS

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.212 · 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