MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412566589 · doi:10.1111/lnc3.70013

Correlates of Object Raising in Mayan

2025· article· en· W4412566589 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Linguistics Compass · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)LinguisticsObject (grammar)PsychologyPhilosophyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Mayan languages show variation in the morphosyntactic distribution of absolutive objects. A now commonly‐adopted analysis ties this variation to differences in object movement and agreement. In so‐called ‘high‐absolutive’ languages, objects consistently raise to a position above the ergative subject, where they are targeted for ‐Agree by a probe on finite . In ‘low‐absolutive’ languages, on the other hand, objects remain low and enter into ‐Agree with a low functional head, v . This paper surveys the constellation of empirical evidence for this basic division, specifically related to Ā‐extraction constraints, the position of absolutive morphemes within the verbal complex, the availability of absolutive marking in nonfinite clauses, and the binding properties of absolutive objects. It then compares an object raising account with alternatives.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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