Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sentences with substantive predicates (SSP), or nominal sentences as Otto Jespersen once called, are common in Chinese. Monographs and textbooks dealing with Chinese grammar have regarded SSP as an important grammatical item. But why can substantives act as predicate? Why cannot two substantives or nominal expressions in principle cannot appear freely in the same SSP. In other words, why is the word order relatively stable and cannot be altered? This paper is an attempt to expound and prove those issues, i.e. the autonomy of SSP. Key words: Substantive predicate; Autonomy; Substantives; NatureResume: Les phrases avec des predicats substantifs (PPS), ou les phrases nominales comme appele une fois par Otto Jespersen, sont communes en chinois. Les monographies et des manuels qui traitent de la grammaire chinoise ont toujours considere les PPS comme un element grammatical important. Mais pourquoi les substantifs peuvent agir en tant que des predicats? Pourquoi deux substantifs ou des expressions nominales ne peuvent pas, en principe, apparaitre librement dans les memes PPS. En d'autres termes, pourquoi l'ordre des mots est relativement stable et ne peut pas etre modifie? Cet article est une tentative d'exposer et de prouver tous ces problemes, a savoir les problemes de l'autonomie des PPS.Mots-cles: predicats substantifs; autonomie; substantifs; nature
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".