MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282858118

New perspectives on the study of ser and estar

2015· book· en· W2282858118 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Isabel Pérez-Jiménez, Manuel Leonetti, Silvia Gumiel Molina

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTranslation Studies and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)LinguisticsInferenceHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophyArtificial intelligenceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Ser and estar: Outstanding questions (by Leonetti, Manuel) 2. Ser and estar and aspect 3. More than a copula: complex predicates with estar and the clitic se (by Garcia Fernandez, Luis) 4. Ser, estar and two different modifiers (by Romeu, Juan) 5. Sentences as predicates: the Spanish construction ser (by Fernandez Leborans, Maria Jesus) 6. Ser and estar beyond aspect 7. The inference of temporal persistence and the individual/stage level distinction: the case of ser vs. estar in Spanish (by Gumiel-Molina, Silvia) 8. Location and the estar/ser alternation (by Zagona, Karen) 9. What do Spanish copulas have in common with Tibetan evidentials? (by Camacho, Jose) 10. On word order in Spanish copular sentences (by Leonetti, Manuel) 11. The extension and loss of copulas 12. Origins and development of adjectival passives in Spanish: a corpus study (by Marco, Cristina) 13. Eventive and stative passives and copula selection in Canadian and American Heritage Speaker Spanish (by Valenzuela, Elena) 14. The development and use of the Spanish copula with adjectives by Korean-speaking learners (by Geeslin, Kimberly L.) 15. Index

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.032
Scholarly communication0.0110.025
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations90
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTranslation Studies and PracticesFrench-language works237,207