MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111070243 · doi:10.34096/sys.n36.9200

Los frustrativos como aspecto: Un análisis a partir del chorote (mataguayo) y el m˜ebengokre (jê)

2019· article· es· W3111070243 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Jerónimo Carol, Andrés Pablo Salanova

Bibliographic record

VenueSigno y seña · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSpanish Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El frustrativo, una categoría gramatical presente en varias lenguas sudamericanas y de otras partes del mundo, indica que algún resultado o consecuencia de la eventualidad expresada en la proposición no ha tenido efecto. En un sentido estricto (Overall 2017), señala que la eventualidad se completó, pero sin los efectos esperados; sin embargo, también puede indicar que aquella no llegó a completarse o iniciarse. El examen de los datos de varias lenguas muestra que la alternancia entre estos dos (grupos de) significados es sistemática en la interacción del frustrativo con el aspecto. Así, por ejemplo, en algunas lenguas el frustrativo tiene por defecto el valor de eventualidad completada sin los efectos esperados, y adquiere el valor de eventualidad no completada o iniciada cuando coocurre con morfología imperfectiva, mientras que en otras lenguas ocurre lo inverso: el valor por defecto es el segundo mencionado, y el primero de ellos se obtiene cuando el frustrativo coocurre con morfología perfectiva. En el presente artículo proponemos un análisis formal del frustrativo como aspecto utilizando la noción de inercia (Dowty 1979) a partir, principalmente, de datos de dos lenguas sudamericanas: el chorote (mataguayo, Argentina y Paraguay) y el mẽbengokre (jê, Brasil).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSigno y señaSame topicSpanish Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207