The System of Grammatical Categories of the Verb in Kazakh, Russian, 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
The relevance of the study is conditioned by the fact that the verb is a part of speech that expresses the grammatical meaning of an action, so there is a sign of a dynamic flow in time. The verb is the only part of speech that has analytical forms. The specificity of a verb is a dependent grammatical meaning that binds verbs concerning an action. They do not contain the semantics of the restriction in the action that they denote, their boundary can be considered as defined from the outside, but not as a result of the verb semantics. The purpose is to consider and compare the system of grammatical categories of the verb in Kazakh, Russian, and English. The following methods were used: linguistic, comparative, and structural. The basic unit of grammar is the grammatical category. It combines grammatical forms with a single grammatical meaning. Whole, homogeneous, and opposite grammatical forms of a particular language are called a paradigm. When analysing categories, it is especially important to consider the unity of semantic and formal plans: if there is no plan, then this phenomenon cannot be classified. Grammatical categories of each language can be a kind of questionnaire for describing objects and situations in that language.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 it