MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407086021 · doi:10.1080/23273798.2025.2453183

Positive polarity items: an illusion of ungrammaticality

2025· article· en· W4407086021 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

VenueLanguage Cognition and Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPolarity (international relations)IllusionCognitive psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceNatural language processingCommunicationChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Negative Polarity Item (NPIs) produce an illusion of grammaticality in some contexts with negation. Many approaches to modelling the NPI illusion propose that it is driven by the processor's attempt to link an NPI to a negative element. We investigate an illusion effect observed with Positive Polarity Item (PPIs), another class of polarity sensitive element. While NPIs must be licensed by a negative element, PPIs are anti-licensed by negative elements. We find an illusion of ungrammaticality for PPIs in environments where an illusion of grammaticality is observed for NPIs. Thus, we argue there is a general polarity illusion. We find that several accounts of the NPI illusion either predict this PPI illusion or can capture this effect with a straightforward extension. The approaches which are able to predict this effect share a reliance on structural representation, highlighting the importance of both the licensing features of polarity items and the structural detail in sentence processing representations.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.257 · 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