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 discusses shared arguments in coordinate structures in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). It assumes that a shared argument between two conjuncts can be a subject or an object. The paper uses the lexical-functional grammar (LFG) framework for analyzing this kind of structure. In LFG, the two possible analyses for similar structures involve analyzing the shared argument as bearing two functions in the two conjuncts. The first analysis is the split analysis, where the shared argument is zipped to both conjuncts by assuming that the verb phrases in both conjuncts are split. The second analysis is function spreading, in which the function of the shared argument is spread from one conjunct to another. This paper argues that the previous analyses in LFG have faced some problems in accounting for this phenomenon in MSA. To solve these problems, this paper contributes a new analysis for shared arguments that involves analyzing the missing argument, whether it is a subject or an object, as a null argument.
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 | 0.087 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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