Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relationship between prosodic encliticization of the conjunctive coordinator and OV word order (or the equivalent correlation between VO and procliticization) is a strong descriptive universal. Namely, if a language shows prosodic encliticization (prosodic attachment after the initial coordinand), as in “ John-and Peter” , then that language is necessarily OV, as is the case in Japanese. However, if a language has procliticization of the conjunctive coordinator, as in “ John and-Peter ”, we cannot say whether it is OV or VO, since, for example, English, Spanish and Basque display procliticization but English and Spanish are VO while Basque is OV. Using experimental data from speakers of convergent (OV – enclisis and VO – proclisis) languages such as Japanese, English, and Spanish and non-convergent (OV – proclisis) languages such as Basque, the study addresses the strength of the relationship between the encliticization of conjunctive coordination and word order in the mind of native speakers of these four languages.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".