Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their reply to Reynolds (2013), Lenchuk and Ahmed deny that determina- tives can participate in the partitive construction as described and claim that the set of independent possessive pronouns (e.g., my, your, its, etc.) are actually determinatives. Their arguments hinge on a very peculiar understanding of the word can and a failure to recognize that words in different categories may share a shape; they do not succeed. Nevertheless, I agree with Lenchuk and Ahmed that a consistent distinction between function and category should be maintained. ESL grammars don’t do this, and they should.Dans leur critique de Reynolds (2013), Lenchuk et Ahmed nient que les détermi- nants puissent participer à la construction partitive telle que décrite, et affirment que l’ensemble de pronoms possessifs indépendants (par ex. my, your, its, etc.) sont en réalité des déterminants. Leurs arguments reposent sur une interprétation bien particulière du mot can ainsi que sur un manque de reconnaissance que les mots de différentes catégories puissent partager une même forme; leurs arguments ne sont pas convaincants. Toutefois, je suis d’accord avec Lenchuk et Ahmed qu’il faudrait maintenir une distinction cohérente entre la fonction et la catégorie. Les grammaires en ALS ne le font pas, et elles devraient le faire.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".