Russian and Negative Prefixing: A Cognitive-Semantic Approach to the Negative Adjective Prefixing in Russian, Spanish, Persian, and English
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
Negative prefixing has always been an important and intriguing morphological process, through which adjectives are formed in many different languages. However, there are limits to negative prefixing. In this study, we introduce the novel concept of Polarity Flexibility, through which the limitations for the negative prefixing are accounted for. Furthermore, we conducted an experiment to investigate whether the PF is an active cognitive process. The results of the experiment confirm our hypothesis and the fact that Polarity Flexibility does indeed influence the cognitive processing. In our study, we introduce the notion of the syntactic arrangement which influences the negative prefixing. Therefore, we compare Russian, Persian, Spanish and English in negative prefixing to show how much the cognitive processes are influenced by the syntactic formations. Russian as a representative of Slavic languages brings an important insight into the way syntax plays role in the semantic-cognitive context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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