Place of Causativity in the Language System of the Azerbaijani and English languages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“The English-Azerbaijani Dictionary” gives the following definitions for the words “causative” and “causation” in Azerbaijani: 1) Səbəbiyyət (act of causing); 2) Səbəblik (causation); 3) Hadisələr arasında səbəb əlaqəsi (causative relations among the events) [The English-Azerbaijani Dictionary, 2003]. Thus, by causativity or causation the linguistics mean the relations of cause and consequence. The category of cause and consequence has been attracting the attention of philosophers, textual critics and linguists since the antiquity. Bunge, who studied this category particularly, notes that the category of causation functions as a special type of mutual actions or mutual interdependence. The relation of cause and consequence as a philosophical category complete each other. As the human language reflects the realities, the relation of cause plays an important role as the category of time in the syntax of the sentence (Bunge, 1962).
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".