MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071707041

08. Tucking-in and Pivot-Third Word Order

2021· article· en· W7071707041 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsSpecifierWord orderGeneralizationPhraseThematic mapWord (group theory)Order (exchange)TagalogDeterminer phrase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some formal investigations of specifiers have suggested that, if a phrase has multiple specifiers and one of these specifiers is thematic (i.e., externally merged), this thematic specifier is necessarily the lowest one.This 'thematic-lowest' hypothesis has been used to explain extraction facts in Tagalog (Rackowski and Richards 2005).The present paper brings in new data to the discussion on specifiers, namely the 'pivot-third' word order found in many Austronesian languages.I suggest a new analysis for it, according to which pivots in pivot-third languages tuck in to Spec-VoiceP.They end up below the thematic specifier, rather than above it.If accepted, this analysis casts doubt on the generalization that thematic specifiers must be lowest among a maximal projection's specifiers.

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 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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207