MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309559058 · doi:10.16995/glossa.7685

The Bantu-Salish connection in determiner semantics

2022· article· en· W4309559058 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 institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeterminerReferentDefinitenessLinguisticsBantu languagesNoun phraseDeterminer phraseNounNegationPsychologySemantics (computer science)Computer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a semantic analysis of the D(eterminer)-system in Nata (Eastern Bantu), and compares it with the strikingly similar D-system of St’át’imcets (Salish). Our core proposal is that in both languages, the major distinction encoded by Ds correlates with the presence vs. absence of speaker commitment to the existence of a referent for the noun phrase.We show that neither Nata nor St’át’imcets Ds encode well-known distinctions like definiteness or specificity. Instead, they reflect the speaker’s (un)willingness to commit to the existence of a referent for the DP. Despite these parallels, the two D-systems are not identical. In St’át’imcets, the notion of existence is based on the speaker’s personal knowledge; in Nata, the existence Ds are also used for entities which are surmised to exist, or are future possibilities. We derive the difference between ‘knowledge of existence’ and ‘belief of existence’ from independent differences in the evidential systems of the two languages. This work contributes to the landscape of potential determiner meanings across 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)0.006
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 score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · 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