MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391006280 · doi:10.3765/64796152

Trivalent Exh and summative predicates

2024· article· en· W4391006280 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

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegationSummative assessmentHomogeneousHomogeneity (statistics)LinguisticsTruth valueProblem of universalsMathematicsComputer sciencePhilosophyCombinatoricsFormative assessmentStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many expressions display 'homogeneity': they quantify as universals in positive sentences, but as negated existentials in negative sentences. This paper aims to partly rethink work claiming that homogeneity is the result of exhaustification. I focus on 'summative' predicates like colour adjectives, and the claim that they are universal in positive sentences because they exclude one another. Three puzzles arise on this approach: the existence of truth-value gaps in non-homogeneous situations, the existence of non-maximality, and contrasts between sentential negation and other downward-entailing environments. I show that all of these difficulties can be resolved if exhaustification is trivalent rather than bivalent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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