MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406813610 · doi:10.3765/elm.3.5824

A nonce investigation of a possible conjunctive default for disjunction

2025· article· en· W4406813610 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adina Camelia Bleotu, Andreea C. Nicolae, Mara Panaitescu, Gabriela Bîlbîie, Anton Benz, Lyn Tieu

Bibliographic record

VenueExperiments in Linguistic Meaning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaConnaught FundLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversitatea din BucureștiDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsCryptographic nonceComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study explores whether there is a conjunctive default in the interpretation of disjunction, focusing on Romanian children’s and adults’ understanding of nonce functional words. We investigate how participants interpret novel connectors such as mo and mo...mo, which could theoretically correspond to ‘(both) A and B’, ‘(either) A or B’, or ‘A not B’ / ‘neither A nor B’. Our results reveal that both adults and children overwhelmingly assign a conjunctive meaning to these nonce words. This suggests the existence of a conjunctive default in interpreting unknown operators linking two elements, which could explain why children have sometimes been found to interpret disjunctions as conjunctions in previous studies (Singh et al. 2016, Tieu et al. 2017, Bleotu et al. 2023). In particular, we discuss how this conjunctive default may influence Romanian children’s interpretation of complex disjunctions such as fie...fie, potentially explaining why they treat these constructions conjunctively. Importantly,our findings also raise broader questions about why certain logical interpretations are favored over others, and whether frequency or cognitive simplicity can drive such biases.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.013
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperiments in Linguistic MeaningSame topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207