MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327937630 · doi:10.1075/cilt.361.06gun

<i>Ezafe</i> as a linking feature within DP

2023· book-chapter· en· W4327937630 on OpenAlexaff
Songül Gündoğdu, Betül Erbaşı

Bibliographic record

VenueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theory · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnificationVariation (astronomy)TurkishHead (geology)Feature (linguistics)Dependency (UML)Computer scienceLinguisticsDomain (mathematical analysis)NounNatural language processingRange (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophyEngineeringPhysicsProgramming languageGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies on Ezafe demonstrate that it displays considerable cross-linguistic variation, making it difficult to propose a unified analysis. Our goal is to achieve such unification by investigating the properties of Ezafe in two typologically different languages; Northern Kurdish/Kurmanji Kurdish (Iranian) and Turkish (Turkic). Taking Ezafe as a linking feature that marks dependency between the head and the non-head elements within the nominal domain, we propose that the variation can be explained with the head directionality of the language and the phase domain where the head noun lands in/remains. This allows us to account for data that were problematic for previous accounts and to extend the range of data to languages (specifically, Turkish) that have not been analyzed as Ezafe languages before.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueAmsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series 4, Current issues in linguistic theorySame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207