MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391092433 · doi:10.3765/dxn8d863

Structural ambiguity in DPs with quantity nouns

2024· article· en· W4391092433 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Alonso‐Ovalle, Bernhard Schwarz

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyntaxAmbiguityFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceNounParallelsLinguisticsProper nounNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceMathematicsProgramming languagePhilosophyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DPs with quantity nouns (QDPs), like that amount of nuts, can combine with predicates of quantities, as in That amount of nuts is low, or with predicates of entities, as in Bo ate that amount of nuts. One account of such selectional flexibility, inspired by Selkirk (1977) and Rothstein (2009), assumes that the two types of predication are transparently encoded through two types of syntactic structures. In this paper, we draw attention to a syntactic challenge for this account of QDPs, viz.that in certain cases it requires two interpreted occurrences of an entity noun like nuts even though only one is pronounced. We argue, however, that this challenge mustbe met and cannot be avoided by abandoning the structural approach. We make this case by arguing against an alternative analysis of the selectional flexibility of QDPs developed in Scontras 2017. On this alternative, quantity predication and entity predication with QDPs are derived from a uniform syntax, and entity predication with QDPs parallels entity predication with DPs with kind, like that kind of nuts, under the classic Carlsonian account (Carlson 1977) as developed in Chierchia 1998. We argue that Scontras’ analysis is mistaken, both in positing a unified syntax for the two types of predication with QDPs, and in unifying the analysis of QDPs withthe Carlsonian analysis of kind-DPs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings from Semantics and Linguistic TheorySame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207