MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324377411 · doi:10.1017/s1360674323000059

Elaine J. Francis, Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory (Oxford Surveys in Syntax & Morphology). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. xv + 270. ISBN 9780192898951.

2023· article· en· W4324377411 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Ungerer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Linguistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSecond Language Acquisition and Learning
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyntaxLinguisticsMorphology (biology)PhilosophySociologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elaine J. Francis, Gradient acceptability and linguistic theory (Oxford Surveys in Syntax & Morphology). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. Pp. xv + 270. ISBN 9780192898951. - Volume 27 Issue 2

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.015
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.013

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and LinguisticsSame topicSecond Language Acquisition and LearningFrench-language works237,207