<i>To</i>‐Infinitive and Gerund‐Participle Clauses with the Verbs <i>Dread</i> and <i>Fear</i>
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 This paper investigates the variation between to ‐infinitive and gerund‐participle complements with the verbs dread and fear . Specifically, it aims to explain the reasons underlying complement selection with these two verbs as well as a number of semantic effects which arise with these complement clause constructions. The approach taken here argues that an explanation of these constructions must be predicated upon an analysis of the semantic content of the items of which each one is composed. Three factors are proposed as being relevant to explaining the issues: (1) the meaning and function of the gerund‐participle, (2) the meaning and function of the to ‐infinitive, and (3) the meaning of the main predicate. The findings of this study are in line with those of previous studies which have applied the same approach. This paper is intended as a small contribution to ongoing efforts to crack the complementation issue in English.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it