Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the study of ellipses in the English language. It states the importance and urgency of the investigation of ellipsis. The urgency of the investigation and its importance in the science of linguistics are substantiated and the direction of investigation and the methods used for the study of the problem are determined in the article as well. A special attention is paid to the revelation of theoretical views and the author’s attitudes to these viewpoints are discovered. Another problem to be paid worth of attention is considered structural and semantic peculiarities of sentence and utterance in the investigation because in the determination of the status of linguistic ellipsis this problem plays an important role. Determination of which viewpoint on being ellipsis a sentence or an utterance is considered as one of the main purposes of the investigation in the article, for in the determination of ellipsis as a sentence or an utterance, there is not a unanimous opinion. In the theoretical part of the article all these views are distinguished and highlighted for the successful achievement of the purpose. For the first time, in the article the status of ellipsis is considered on the ground of sentence and utterance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.345 |
| 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".