On the interpretation of long-distance agreement in Border Lakes Ojibwe
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to show that long-distance agreement (LDA) in Border Lakes Ojibwe (Central Algonquian) correlates not with topicality, as claimed in past literature, but with evidentiality (direct evidence), a finding that adds to the set of existing evidential extensions of non-evidential categories (e.g., the perfect in Georgian, participles in Lithuanian, the conditional in French) and bolsters the view that verbal agreement can also correlate with special semantics. Another important observation introduced in this article is that LDA in Ojibwe typically occurs in contexts involving verbs of perception and cognition known as transitive animate . Based on these observations, we propose that these verbs are associated with a set of ϕ -features on matrix v , while selecting an evidential feature. The latter is associated with an extended projection principle (EPP) property, which allows the embedded external or internal argument to raise to the specifier of embedded C. Finally, we show that LDA in Border Lakes Ojibwe has epistemic extensions, which have to do with the speaker’s probability and commitment towards information expressed. In this connection, we also propose that the evidential effect exhibited by LDA in Border Lakes Ojibwe is of the epistemic, rather than the illocutionary type.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it