Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses both the practical question of what forms of complementation are found with verbs expressing the notion of choice in English and the theoretical question of explaining the control and temporal effects found with these verbs.The explanation proposed is based on an approach in which syntax is taken to be driven by semantics.Semantics is defined in terms of the meaning-content associated with the linguistic forms occurring in the constructions examined, namely the ?0-infinitive, the gerund-participle, and the lexical content of the different verbs of choice themselves, together with the semantic value of the complement's function with respect to the main verb.Although it does not utilize a corpus in the strict sense of the word, nor employ statistical argumentation, the study is based mainly on an examination of attested usage in Canadian English as reflected by Canadian websites accessed in the fall of 2006.Resume II est traite dans la presente etude a la fois de la question pratique de recenser les formes de complements possibles avec les verbes exprimant l'idee de choix en anglais et de l'explication theorique des effets de sens impliquant les phenomenes de controle et de temporalite avec ces verbes.L'explication est fondee sur le postulat que la syntaxe est conditionnee par la semantique, cette derniere etant definie par les signifies des formes linguistiques effectivement employees dans les sequences en question, c'est-a-dire l'infinitif, le participe-gerondif et les lexemes des verbes de choix, ainsi que la valeur semantique de la fonction que remplit le complement par rapport au verbe de la principale.Bien que l'etude ne soit pas fondee sur un corpus au sens strict, ni sur des statistiques, elle emploie comme donnees des occurrences attestees trouvees sur des sites web canadiens a l'automne 2006.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.640 | 0.564 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".