MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992826951 · doi:10.1080/00210862.2010.518026

Persian Progressive Tense: Serial Verb Construction or Aspectual Complex Predicate?

2010· article· en· W1992826951 on OpenAlex

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

VenueIranian Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVerbPredicate (mathematical logic)LinguisticsPersianReflexive verbComputer scienceModal verbHistoryNatural language processingPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present and past progressive tenses in Persian are the only tenses in which both the main verb and the minor verb dâštan “to have” receive agreement marking. Morpho-syntactically, Persian progressives show the similar properties of both Aspectual Complex Predicates and Serial Verb Constructions. The question that this paper addresses is: are Persian progressive tenses Aspectual Complex Predicates or Serial Verb Constructions? By presenting the morpho-syntactic and semantic analysis of Persian progressives, and highlighting the main properties of Aspectual Complex Predicates and Serial Verb Constructions, the paper shows that, despite the similarities between these verbal constructions and Aspectual Complex Predicates, Persian progressives are instances of Serial Verb Constructions where neither a complementizer nor a conjunction separates the two verbs and the complex describes a single conceptual event.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.226 · 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