MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390057194 · doi:10.33137/twpl.v46i1.39106

“Serial Verb Constructions” In Tshiluba

2023· article· en· W4390057194 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Martin Renard

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Working Papers in Linguistics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerializationVerbLinguisticsSyntaxComputer scienceBantu languagesKey (lock)Natural language processingPsychologyPhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serial verb constructions (SVCs), that is sequences of several consecutive verbs sharing certain features, form a well-established concept in descriptive and comparative syntax. However, there is no consensus concerning a systematic and universal definition of these constructions, leading authors like Bisang (2009) and Haspelmath (2016) to propose explicit criteria for their identification. Although Bantu languages are rarely described as containing SVCs, Tshiluba exhibits constructions that look suspiciously similar to them. This work therefore addresses two questions: (a) are these constructions SVCs in either Bisang’s (2009) or Haspelmath’s (2016) sense?; and (b) what are their key properties? Using various elicitation methods, I collected data indicating that these Tshiluba constructions conform to those definitions, and exhibit many properties which are usually associated with SVCs. Despite this evidence, further complications mean that these constructions remain ambiguous between serialization and asyndetic coordination, suggesting that we may be dealing with an on-going shift between the two (Andrason 2018), although further empirical confirmation is needed.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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