MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412039287 · doi:10.1111/lnc3.70016

Conjoined Comparison and Variation in Degree Semantics

2025· article· en· W4412039287 on OpenAlex
M. Ryan Bochnak

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 and Linguistics Compass · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Semantics (computer science)Degree (music)LinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophyProgramming languagePhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Conjoined comparisons, consisting of two clauses containing antonymous or positive‐negative predicate pairs, are among the most common comparison construction types in the world's languages. As research on degree constructions from a cross‐linguistic perspective has increased, so too has the number of studies focused on conjoined comparisons. Although the number of languages that have received in‐depth treatment is still fairly small, this growing body of research has already uncovered important aspects of cross‐linguistic variation, to the point where we can now begin to hypothesize about the typology of conjoined comparisons. This article summarizes these findings, and takes the first steps towards developing a typology of conjoined comparison constructions, taking into account not only differences between conjoined comparisons, but also the overall degree‐behaviour of the languages. It will be emphasized that the existence of conjoined comparison is not diagnostic of the absence of degrees in a language more generally.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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