Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper contrasts the dative/accusative alternations in Romance languages with Romanian: In Romance, this alternation mediates the emergence of a DOM particle for direct objects, in addition to the preservation of the same particle with the indirect object (morphological extension). The case assigning property of this particle is paramount in both contexts. On the other hand, in Romanian, the dative/accusative alternation ends up with the complete substitution of one syntactic pattern by the other in the same position; e.g., dative inflected direct objects of Old Romanian (theme/patient theta-role) are substituted by accusatives with or without DOM in Modern Romanian. The change concerns the general option for analytical versus synthetic case in the grammar, irrespective of DOM. This contrast confirms the conclusions of previous studies that the development of DOM in Romanian involves different morpho-syntactic patterns than those proposed for Romance languages (e.g., Spanish), especially with respect to the origin and function of the DOM particle and the pairing of case marking on DP and the theta-roles they spell out.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads 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".