MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388499581 · doi:10.1111/1467-968x.12280

Negation in Contact: French and Occitan

2023· article· en· W4388499581 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

VenueTransactions of the Philological Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
FundersJohn Fell Fund, University of OxfordTrinity College, University of Oxford
KeywordsFifteenthNegationGrammaticalizationLinguisticsLiteratureLanguage contactHistoryArtPhilosophyClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Development of negative markers along the lines of the well‐known Jespersen's Cycle occurred in a wide number of languages. This article investigates the possibility of contact playing a role in such developments in Lengadocian Occitan. The evolution of negation in Lengadocian Occitan followed two main lines. It first developed a postverbal negative marker ges , until increased contact with French from the fifteenth century onwards meant that the language initially adopted the two main postverbal negative markers of French pas and point , in the form of their cognates pas and ponch . In the early modern period (fifteenth to eighteenth century), prolonged contact with French was a key factor in the ultimate selection of pas as the sole postverbal marker. But the pace of grammaticalisation of this marker in Occitan was quicker and went further than in French, in that from the eighteenth century pas is often the sole negative marker, and that it starts early on to appear together with negative polarity items. This means that when the preverbal negative marker disappears, negative concord is maintained, contrary to modern spoken French.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.180 · 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