MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022022742 · doi:10.1075/bjl.14.09mot

The Syntax of <i>putea</i> and its Mixed Typology

2000· article· en· W2022022742 on OpenAlexaff
Virginia Motapanyane, Larisa Avram

Bibliographic record

VenueBelgian Journal of Linguistics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinitiveLinguisticsModal verbSyntaxComplement (music)VerbDependent clauseVariation (astronomy)RestructuringMathematicsAlternation (linguistics)GrammaticalizationComputer scienceTypologyHistoryPhilosophyPhysicsPolitical scienceAstrophysicsSentence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper investigates the syntax of the Romanian modal putea, which exhibits two selectional options in free alternation: an infinitive complement, as in equivalent Romance constructions, and a subjunctive complement, as in equivalent Balkan constructions. The tests show that both derivations qualify as configurations with clause union, although the syntactic mechanism for achieving the clause union may differ: subjunctive complements conform to the tense triggered pattern for biclausal union, as generally accepted in current studies; whereas bare infinitive complements reveal a parallel pattern yielding monoclausal structures ("tight" verb restructuring). The uniform treatment of modal constructions as configurations with verb restructuring demonstrates that the lexical properties of the modal verb remain constant across the syntactic variation, and this reduces the typological differences between Romance and Balkan languages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBelgian Journal of LinguisticsSame topicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationFrench-language works237,207