LA ALTERNANCIA CAUSATIVA Y SU INTERACCIÓN CON ARGUMENTOS DATIVOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo investiga la alternancia causativa y su compatibilidad con diversos tipos de argumentos dativos. Se desarrolla un análisis constructivista de la alternancia según el cual tanto la construcción transitiva causativa (Pablo rompióla radió) como la intransitiva incoativa (Se rompió la radió) son construcciones igualmente complejas, bi-eventivas, que comparten el estado resultante (la radio rota) y se diferencian por el tipo de evento superior. Se propone que existen dos tipos de predicados transitivos (causativos y simples -no causativos) y dos tipos de predicados inacusativos (incoativos y simples) que participan en construcciones sintácticas distintas y, por derivación, diferenciadas semánticamente. La propuesta ilumina el análisis de los argumentos dativos y permite dar cuenta de contrastes sistemáticos en las propiedades sintácticas y semánticas de argumentos dativos con verbos transitivos e inacusativos simples, por un lado, y causativos e incoativos, por el otro. Se muestra cómo la interacción entre los dos análisis ilumina la relación entre sintaxis y semántica.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".