<i>Piensa mío y se venga tuyo.</i> Sobre los tipos de predicados en el complemento pronominal posesivo en español
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen En este trabajo, de corte descriptivo formal, se examinan los tipos de predicados que favorecen la aparición de un complemento pronominal posesivo (Se olvidó mío) en lugar de un complemento de régimen preposicional (Se olvidó de mí), uso documentado especialmente en el español dialectal rioplatense y venezolano. Este fenómeno se plantea como un proceso de reestructuración, en el que el pronombre posesivo se desplaza de posición y elimina la preposición que lo separa del predicado. Después, se presentan los verbos predicativos –pronominales y plenos– que potencian los posesivos argumentales. Entre ellos, se destacan los predicados no delimitados o atélicos. Por último, se señalan algunos exponentes gramaticales (posición sintáctica, concordancia, intercalación de adverbios) que permiten distinguir el complemento de régimen preposicional y el complemento pronominal posesivo, así como este y el complemento posesivo en el ámbito adverbial.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".