Bibliographic record
Abstract
We will argue that instrumentals are the mirror image of dative/genitive obliques. We propose \nthat both sets of adpositions/cases are elementary predicates, expressing a zonal inclusion (partwhole/possession \nrelation); instrumentals reverse the direction of the relation with respect to \ndatives/genitives. Our claim is that with-type morphemes provide very elementary means of \nattaching extra participants (themes, initiators, etc.) to events (VP or vP predicates) – with specialized \ninterpretations derived by pragmatic enrichment (contextual, encyclopedic) at the C-I \ninterface. We will extend our proposal to account for the observation that the instrumentals can \nbe employed cross-linguistically in triadic verb constructions alternating with datives and we \nwill broaden our discussion to account for dative/instrumental syncretism (eventually including \nDOM objects), arguing that the inclusion predicate (⊆) corresponding to ‘to’ or dative case and its \nreverse (⊇), corresponding to ‘with’ or instrumental case, may reduce to an even more primitive \ncontent capable of conveying inclusion in either direction. Finally, we will address ergative alignments, \nshowing that languages may attach external arguments/agents either as possessors (⊆) \nor as causers (⊇) of a given event/state, yielding the two most widespread patterns of syncretism \nof the ergative morpheme, that is with either instrumentals or genitives/datives.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".