MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409595450 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-004

A Study of Modern Chinese Quantifier Constructions Based on Random Forest (RF) Modeling

2025· article· en· W4409595450 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jian-ping Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Computational Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestQuantifier (linguistics)LinguisticsMathematicsComputer scienceStatisticsGeographyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper attempts to conduct a systematic study on the constructions of quantity phrases in modern Chinese on the basis of relevant research results, drawing on the theory of constructive grammar, in order to demonstrate the mechanism of constructions of quantity phrases in modern Chinese.The study firstly researches and analyzes the matching and distribution of quantity phrases as well as the Chinese construct grammar.Then, the study is based on random forests to investigate the constructions of quantifiers.By extracting and labeling six modern Chinese corpora, the analysis is carried out using random forests.On this basis, in order to further analyze the role of the relationship between the constructions of quantifiers, this paper also invokes a multinomial logit regression model for the study.It is found that the construct variant, regional variant, verb immediately following at the end of the sentence, structure initiation, and verb prototypicality are important factors affecting the number word constructions.In addition, the probability of quantifiers was higher when the construction variants were A and D, and sentence initiation while more inclined to co-occur with quantifiers.These findings reveal constraints on quantifier constructions and demonstrate the advantages of combining machine learning methods to analyze Chinese constructions.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.306
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicAdvanced Computational Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207