MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406402826 · doi:10.1007/s11049-024-09620-w

Morphological conditions on movement-chain resolution

2025· article· en· W4406402826 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Michelle Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Language & Linguistic Theory · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLanguage and cultural evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Behavioral and Cognitive SciencesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMovement (music)Chain (unit)Resolution (logic)GeodesyGeologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtPhysicsAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent research on the Copy Theory of Movement has suggested that the realization of movement chains may be regulated by well-formedness conditions governing complex word formation, such as the Stray Affix Filter (e.g., Nunes 2004; Landau 2006). This paper extends this idea to account for certain underdocumented patterns of noun incorporation in Inuktitut (Eastern Canadian Inuit). In contrast to most prior characterizations of incorporation in the Inuit language, I demonstrate that, at least in Inuktitut, incorporated nominals are syntactically active DPs: they are able to participate in case and agreement alternations and undergo phrasal movement. These findings, in turn, motivate an analysis in which incorporation in at least Inuktitut takes place solely to satisfy the morphosyntactic requirements of certain verbs that are lexically specified as affixal (cf. Sadock 1985, 1991). The observation that incorporated nouns invariably surface within the verb complex even when extracted follows straightforwardly from the aforementioned interaction between chain resolution and the Stray Affix Filter.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Language & Linguistic TheorySame topicLanguage and cultural evolutionFrench-language works237,207