MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003095802 · doi:10.7202/009311ar

Morphological Paradigms and the Role of Tense

2004· article· en· W2003095802 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mihaela Pirvulescu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsInflectionPresent tenseRepresentation (politics)MorphemeRomance languagesRelation (database)Computer scienceAgreementSubject (documents)Constraint (computer-aided design)Past tensePsychologyMathematicsVerbPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I propose that the existence of morphological paradigms in the domain of the verbal inflection is subject to a morphosyntactic constraint: paradigms are based on an asymmetrical relation between tense and agreement features. The syntactic dependence of agreement features on the Tense node is carried out at the morphological level in the following way: verbal forms that have a syntactic tense representation will be assigned a paradigm in a post syntactic morphological module; verbal forms that do not have a syntactic tense representation will not be assigned a morphological paradigm (as is the case of the so-called non-personal moods like the gerund) or will have a “parasitic paradigm” (as, for example, the subjunctive and the imperative in Romance languages). In other words, tense features legitimate paradigmatic structure. Examples from Romance languages as well as from unrelated languages as Hungarian and Albanian seem to support this hypothesis.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207