A Morpho-Syntactic Study of Contemporary Science Fiction Short Stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to research two morphological processes: acronym and compounding (phrasal compounds/circumlocution) and one syntactic category which are ‘existential sentences’ in science fiction short stories. The present paper identifies different types and rates of existential sentences. In this respect, ‘bare existential and locative’ read the high percentages and may be contrasted with other classifications of English existential sentences which have a verb other than ‘be’ and a definite expression. ‘Phrasal compounds’ vary in rates as they constitute notable percentage for those that involve ‘lexical means and lexical relations’ followed by ‘prepositional compounds’, ‘conjunctional compounds’, and those involve ‘a noun, pronoun, and an adjective’. Furthermore, ‘phrasal compounds’ containing a verb’ having the value of zero. Analysis of data has acknowledged that ‘atomic’ acronym constitutes the high percentage than ‘molecular’ and this explains the abundance of the unpronounceable acronym in science fiction. Generally, existential sentences, existential sentences may give the entire clause a fresh status.
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 | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".