MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EL POSESIVO (ANTEPUESTO) T�NICO EN ESPA�OL: �FEN�MENO DE FOCO Y CONTRASTE?

2015· article· es· W1511272533 on OpenAlex
Enrique Pato

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

VenueDialectologia · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSpanish Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En espanol septentrional peninsular los pronombres posesivos de un solo poseedor (mi, tu su) pueden presentar una variante tonica (mi, tu, su). Este empleo todavia no ha sido objeto de descripcion ni estudio. si en el discurso espontaneo estos posesivos antepuestos unas veces son atonos y otras tonicos, debe haber un factor estructural, informativo, detras de este empleo. Nos preguntamos, por ello, si es posible hacer uso de nociones como las de foco y contraste para caracterizar el constituyente posesivo en este fenomeno de microvariacion del espanol septentrional. Para ello, revisamos en primer lugar las descripciones precedentes sobre su distribucion geografica y establecemos un acercamiento a las nociones de topico, foco y contraste. Despues, realizamos una clasificacion y descripcion general del posesivo antepuesto tonico en espanol septentrional gracias a los datos del Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Espanol Rural (COSER). Por ultimo, estableceremos algunas consideraciones finales sobre el fenomeno.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.256 · 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