Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study considers a contrast in Mainland Scandinavian with respect to co-occurrence of a suffixal and a free-standing determiner ("double determination'') in parallel to a series of contrasts in how the suffixal determiner is realized phonologically. On the basis of the phonological evidence I propose that in Norwegian and Swedish the suffixal determiner does not belong to the same phonological domain with the root with respect to several phonological processes, in contrast to Danish. Consequently, I argue that only in the former two languages the suffixal determiner should be considered a spellout trigger and thus a phase-head. Independently of this, I propose that in all Mainland Scandinavian the head hosting the suffixal determiner has a feature [Affix], proposed by Roberts (2005), that triggers a head-movement, whereas the head hosting the free-standing determiner does not have this feature. This state of affairs offers itself as an ideal testing ground for the hypothesis that there are general grammar constraints on the distribution of movement driving features, in particular of an EPP-like feature [Affix]. I propose that [Affix] specification should be consistent within a phase, which represents an amendment to the EPP downward inheritance generalization of Biberauer et al. (2008). The absence of "double determination'' in Danish is then argued to follow from the non-phase head status of the head hosting the suffixal determiner in Danish, as this bleeds the environment for an [Affix] specification "switch''.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".