MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W5712782

Anti-Extraction in Quebecois French Wh-Interrogatives (DRAFT)

2006· article· en· W5712782 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean‐Philippe Marcotte

Bibliographic record

Venue˜Das œdeutsche Gesundheitswesen · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterrogative wordObligationLinguisticsScope (computer science)Set (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingComputer scienceHistoryPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wh-NPs like “which book” and “which man” limit the range of felicitous answers to (1a) to a set of ordered pairs of contextually salient books and men, whereas the wh-pronouns “what” and “who” in (1b) do not. In Pesetsky’s terms, wh-NPs are D(iscourse)-linked, while wh-pronouns are non-D-linked. Being D-linked allows a whphrase to take scope in-situ, absolving it from its obligation to move to an operator position at LF: “which man” in (1a) can stay put at LF, but “who” in (1b) cannot:

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜Das œdeutsche GesundheitswesenSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207