MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284896578 · doi:10.16995/glossa.6557

The syntactization of kinship in vocative phrases

2022· article· en· W4284896578 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

VenueGlossa a journal of general linguistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsKinshipRelation (database)Speech actProsodyPsychologyAnaphora (linguistics)Head (geology)Rank (graph theory)Computer scienceSociologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current studies point out that vocative phrases encode the social relation between speaker and addressee by the interaction of various means, i.e., prosody, lexical options, morpho-syntactic operations. As a contribution to this body of research, this paper focuses on reversed vocatives, and develops two main arguments: (i) vocative phrases provide the default domain for the morpho-syntactic encoding of speaker’s social superiority; and (ii) reversed vocatives are a case in order, where the syntactization of the kinship rank ensures the speaker’s upper-hand in the social relation. Formally, the mapping of the kinship feature entails syntactic head splitting, so the analysis confirms that the derivations concerning the conversational field conform to the general split-and-remerge options available to functional heads (on a par with D, C, T fields).

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.253 · 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