MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2485877726 · doi:10.1075/scl.67.07mey

Passives of so-called ‘ditransitives’ in nineteenth century and present-day Canadian English

2015· book-chapter· en· W2485877726 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in corpus linguistics · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplement (music)Dominance (genetics)LinguisticsMatching (statistics)LiteratureHistoryArtPhilosophyMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on the double-participant verbs assign , bring , deny , give , grant , offer , send , serve , sell , show and teach , and the competition between first passives ( He was offered the job ), second passives ( The job was offered him ) and passives with a prepositional complement ( The job was offered to him ) in matching corpora of 19th century and Present-day Canadian English. The verbs display individual preferences for the first passive and the prepositional construction and the acceptability of their second passives also varies. All in all, the 19th century corpus reveals a clear dominance of passives with a prepositional complement over first passives, whereas the reverse is the case in the contemporary corpus. The second passive is shown to have been a minority form already in the 19th century and to be even rarer today. Keywords: Canadian English; passivisation; ditransitives; 19th century

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.274 · 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