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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shows that the existence of a linking morpheme is not related to recursion of compounds in the given language, but a linking morpheme does play a role in some ways or the other of recursion. Recursion of compounding is defined as embedding at the edge or in the center of an action or object of an instance of the same type. On the other hand, iteration, is simply unembedded repetition of an action or object (Bisetto 2010). Based on these definitions, it is argued that there are languages with a linking morpheme overtly realized in recursive languages. Second, there are also languages which have genitive compounds with a linking morpheme, although recursive compounds do not have a linking morpheme. On the other hand, there are languages with a genitive compounds and recursive compounds of coordinate VNN or nominal coordinate compounds. In these languages, recursive compounds are not so productive. Finally, Turkish and Greek show that the existence of a linking morpheme is not related to recursion of compounds. They have a linking morpheme in iterated compounds, but not in recursive compounds.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.045 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it