MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410216840 · doi:10.3765/plsa.v10i1.5926

Access to contextually-determined states in the interpretation of English stative participles

2025· article· en· W4410216840 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Biggs, David Embick

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Linguistic Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)LinguisticsPsychologyNatural language processingComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stative passive participles (SPPs) differ in acceptability for different verbs: cf. The boxes are flattened/\#kicked. However, examples like those with kicked can be felicitous in very specific contexts, e.g. when box-kicking is an item to be checked off of a list: what will be called a 'Job is Done' (JiD) interpretation. An unresolved question in the prior literature is whether JiD is eventive or stative. This question takes on added significance in the context of recent work on the interpretation of SPPs. We argue that JiD is indeed stative, and show that this analysis has numerous consequences for understanding the syntax and interpretation of SPPs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Linguistic Society of AmericaSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207