Actual Behaviors of Newly Observed Phraseological Units Comprising Two Prepositions
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 describes, from a phraseological perspective, phrases created by combining two prepositions into a complex preposition (CP), defined as a word group that functions as a single preposition; for example, into, within, and upon. In particular, this work focuses on the newly observed CPs on against and in to and proposes that be on against and be in to are newly observed phraseological units in contemporary English, which have not yet been described in previous research or English dictionaries. A recent trend in English is to combine two prepositions into new CPs such as in at, and in for. In particular, two adverbial particles in and on co-occur with various prepositions and help establish new CPs. For example, MED2 (Macmillan English Dictionary, 2nd edition) lists new CPs such as in at, in for, in on, on about, and on at. Data obtained from corpora of present-day English show that on against and in to mainly co-occur with be verbs, and be on against and be in to are also observed. However, an extensive literature review shows that previous research and English dictionaries do not address this trend. This research describes their polysemy in different contexts, their functions, formations, and stress patterns.
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 | 0.017 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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