MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6911407023 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10570600

Person and Licensing in Georgian: Puzzles for Cyclic Agree

2023· article· en· W6911407023 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeorgianInflectionArgument (complex analysis)AgreementContrast (vision)Observable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyclic Agree and the Person Licensing Condition predict ungrammaticality for a wide range of argument combinations in Georgian, incorrectly, though both have been used to explain core argument agreement in the language. This problem is defused by positing a high phi-probe on T, in addition to a previously proposed low articulated probe on v. The higher phi-probe is independently observable as added verbal morphology: a suffix-ablaut system. The high phi-probe is obligatory and this creates interactions between agreement loci as a result of general mechanisms (probe unification). A comparison between Georgian and Basque reveals systematic differences attributable to a contrast in the distribution of obligatory probes: the Georgian phi-probe on T is obligatory, while in Basque it is added to satisfy the PLC. This explains a difference between the languages with respect to alignment: intransitive S in Basque is consistently tracked by inflection characteristic of the v probe, while intransitive S in Georgian is consistently tracked by inflection characteristic of the T probe. Details of the interactions between agreement loci support a view of cyclicity where syntactic operations apply freely up to convergence, suggesting that cyclicity follows from Minimal Search or No-Tampering rather than Earliness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207