The split-S system and the source of the absolutive case in Tenetehára
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to investigate the split-S system in Tenetehára. I propose that the A and Sa subjects are cross-referenced by means of the same set of prefixes in root eventive clauses, whereas O and So are encoded by the absolutive clitics. The analysis demonstrates that this language exhibits an internal parametric variation in the sense that the Sa, So and A subjects may receive either the nominative or accusative Case, whereas objects systematically receive the accusative Case. This opens a parametric option in the sense that a higher functional projection must be activated in order to make possible the Case evaluation of the Sa, So, A and O arguments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Este artigo examina o sistema cindido de marcação de argumentos nucleares na língua Tenetehára. Propõe-se que há uma série de prefixos que codifica os argumentos A e Sa de predicados eventivos, enquanto outra série codifica os argumentos O e So por meio de clíticos absolutivos. A análise propõe ainda que essa língua exibe uma variação paramétrica, visto que os sujeitos Sa, So, e A ora recebem Caso nominativo ora Caso acusativo, enquanto objetos recebem apenas Caso acusativo. Esta proposta abre uma opção paramétrica no sentido de que precisamos acionar uma projeção funcional acima do domínio de v-VP para possibilitar a valoração de Caso dos argumentos Sa, So, A e O.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".