MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410603976 · doi:10.3765/plsa.v10i1.5944

Space and attention in the Kyrgyz demonstrative system

2025· article· en· W4410603976 on OpenAlexaff
Eszter Ótott-Kovács, Tolgonay Kubatova, Harrison Saunders, Jonathan North Washington

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Linguistic Society of America · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEurasian Exchange Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemonstrativeSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on novel empirical work on the Kyrgyz (Turkic) nine-term demonstrative system, this paper investigates the spatial uses of demonstratives and the relationship between demonstratives' attention-drawing and spatial denotations, which has been a fundamental question for the study of demonstrative semantic content (Skilton 2019, Levinson 2018). While Kyrgyz, similarly to Turkish (Küntay & Özyürek 2002, 2006), appears to have a specialized attention-drawing demonstrative indicating that attention-drawing and spatial denotations can be entirely distinct, careful elicitations reveal that attention drawing is derived from a (joint-attention) sociocentric distal meaning.

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)0.001
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 score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Linguistic Society of AmericaSame topicEurasian Exchange NetworksFrench-language works237,207