MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390057174 · doi:10.33137/twpl.v46i1.39258

The antipassive in Kirundi

2023· article· en· W4390057174 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Claire Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Working Papers in Linguistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReciprocalSuffixComputer scienceRelation (database)VerbArgument (complex analysis)Natural language processingSelection (genetic algorithm)LinguisticsSemantics (computer science)Artificial intelligenceAssociative propertyFunction (biology)MathematicsProgramming languagePhilosophyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kirundi verbal suffix -an is notably polysemous with three possible meanings: reciprocal, associative, and antipassive. The contexts in which the antipassive is ambiguous or distinct raise questions for -an’s syntactic and semantic analysis. In this paper, I examine new data which demonstrate that -an’s primary function is to add a relation between the verb and an implicit argument. These data support an analysis where -an is a specialized high applicative head (ApplREL) which adds the semantics of such a relation. The distribution of the different meanings is then accounted for by differential semantic selection and binding. This analysis thereby simplifies -an to its relational role and accounts for the ambiguous and non-ambiguous contexts that characterize the suffix. Additionally, this paper addresses various questions about -an’s antipassive status and potential issues with the applicative approach.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Working Papers in LinguisticsSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207