MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487058615 · doi:10.1075/slcs.172.19bin

Future and prospective in the Mongolic languages

2016· book-chapter· en· W2487058615 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in language companion series · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsVerbContext (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceNatural language processingHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mongolic languages have a complex system of finite and non-finite verb forms expressing tense and aspect. In particular, they have several morphological and morphosyntactic means of marking future eventualities. It has been questionable whether these languages possess the category of future tense and/or that of prospective aspect, and how the various markers are to be interpreted semantically, though their pragmatic interpretation in context has not for the most part been in question. This paper presents criteria for temporal and aspectual categories, based on the fundamental structure of the verbal system characteristic of Mongolic languages and examines the various devices used to express futurity in light of these criteria. It is concluded that neither future tense nor prospective aspect as such are semantic categories of the verb in most, if not all, Mongolic 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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.251 · 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