MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7049030057

Modal selectivity in the nominal domain: Spanish uno cualquiera

2016· article· en· W7049030057 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de RecercaSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGeneralitat de CatalunyaUniversitat Pompeu Fabra
KeywordsModalInterpretation (philosophy)SentenceModal operatorModality (human–computer interaction)Modal verb
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modal indefinites are existential determiners that trigger modal inferences. Some of them, which we can call ‘random choice indefinites’, indicate that an agent made an indiscriminate choice (Choi 2007, Choi & Romero 2008, Rivero 2011a,b, Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez- Benito 2011, 2013, a.o.). Spanish “uno cualquiera” belongs to this class. The sentence “Juan cogió una carta cualquiera” (‘Juan picked a random card’) conveys that Juan picked a card and that he chose it indiscriminately — he could have picked any other card. The random choice interpretation can be embedded under modals: the sentence “Juan tiene que haber ido a ver una película cualquiera” (‘Juan must have gone to see a random movie’) can convey that Juan must have gone to see a movie that he picked randomly. Under some modals, another possibility arises: a harmonic reading, on which “uno cualquiera” introduces a distribution effect with respect to the worlds that the modal ranges over. For instance, “¡Coge una carta cualquiera!” (‘take any random card!’) can be interpreted as conveying that any card is a permitted option. However, this harmonic interpretation is not available with all kinds of modals (modal selectivity).\nThis paper aims to derive the modal interaction pattern displayed by “uno cualquiera”. Recent research on verbal modality (e.g., Hacquard 2006, Kratzer 2009) argues that modal domains are anchored to parts of the evaluation world (situations, events, individuals), rather than to whole worlds. Following Alonso-Ovalle & Menéndez-Benito 2013, we assume that the random choice component of “uno cualquiera” projects a modal domain from the decision taken by the agent. This interpretation is derived by positing that “uno cualquiera” is a nominal quantifier anchored to an event argument. On this proposal, we expect different interpretations (random choice vs. harmonic) depending on what event “uno cualquiera” takes as anchor. When the anchor is the event argument of the verb, we will get the random choice interpretation. When “uno cualquiera” shares its anchor with that of a higher modal, we will get the harmonic interpretation. This hypothesis gives us a way to address modal selectivity: we contend that “uno cualquiera” requires anchors of a particular type, and harmonic interpretations are only possible when the anchor of the modal satisfies this requirement.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207