MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301603763 · doi:10.16995/glossa.8437

Classifiers can be for numerals <em>or</em> nouns: Two strategies for numeral modification

2022· article· en· W4301603763 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
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNumeral systemClassifier (UML)NounArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNatural language processingLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares two families of theories for numeral classifiers drawing on fieldwork data from two languages, Ch’ol (Mayan, Mexico) and Shan (Kra-Dai, Myanmar). We discuss classifier-for-numeral theories and classifier-for-noun theories, which we argue make different predictions based on the syntactic position and semantic contribution of the classifier in each set of theories. We argue that Ch’ol is a classifier-for-numeral language and Shan is a classifier-for-noun language. This analysis attributes the distinction between classifier-for-numeral and classifier-for-noun languages to cross-linguistic variation in the strategies for numeral modification. The proposed diagnostics are based on the semantic role of the classifier in numeral modification and can be used to distinguish between the two types of numeral classifiers across other languages.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.234 · 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