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
Abstract Many languages with ergative systems of case or agreement exhibit splits in their alignment. Viewpoint aspect is a common basis for such splits, with perfective aspect often associated with ergative alignment and imperfective with the absence of ergativity (Moravcsik , Silverstein ). Recent work has argued that splits arise from properties of the imperfective that disrupt otherwise‐available mechanisms of ergative alignment (Laka , Coon ). This article argues rather that the perfective can be a source of ergative case, and specifically that ergative alignment in Hindi‐Urdu arises from the intersection of two different ways of expressing perfective aspect, each attested independently in other languages: the first is the use of oblique case to mark perfect or perfective subjects, while the second is a morphosyntactic sensitivity to transitivity, a hallmark of auxiliary selection in Germanic and Romance languages. The result is a more unified view of the morphosyntax of perfective aspect, though at the cost of a nonunified account of aspectually split ergativity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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