MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416165854 · doi:10.1075/lfab.20.06leu

<i>Nǎlǐ nàlǐ</i> — <i>ça</i> , c’est quoi?

2025· book-chapter· en· W4416165854 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage faculty and beyond · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Mandarin ChineseRelevance (law)Relevance theoryOrder (exchange)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Function words are often considered morphosyntactically monolithic, and partial formal similarities between them are easily dismissed as (synchronically) accidental, as evidence for decomposition may be sparse within individual languages. Recurrence in unrelated languages of such similarities, however, immediately raises the plausibility of a principled reason thereof, wherein lies the relevance of a comparative approach. This chapter approaches English, French, German, and Mandarin equivalents of ‘here’, ‘there’, ‘where’, ‘this’, and ‘that’ from a comparative perspective, suggesting untraditional hypotheses regarding their morphematic composition, including a suprasegmental definite article in Mandarin and a preposition in English and French ‘that’/‘cela’. Perhaps more importantly, the study reveals that in order to understand the relation of ‘what’ to ‘this’ and ‘that’, one must study the relation of ‘where’ to ‘here’ and ‘there’.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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