The Classes of Old English Inaction Verbs: Linking, Alternations and Constructions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta tesis trata de la sintaxis y la semántica del inglés antiguo. Más concretamente, la tesis se centra en un grupo de verbos que podría denominarse verbos de inacción (que corresponderían aproximadamente a verbos del inglés contemporáneo tales como end, try, fail, forbid, hinder y refrain). El objetivo de la tesis es atribuir clase a estos verbos, sobre la base de los componentes del significado y el comportamiento gramatical de los mismos, incluidas las construcciones sintácticas y las alternancias en la realización de los argumentos de los verbos en cuestión. Los datos se han extraído de un conjunto de fuentes lexicográficas y textuales del inglés antiguo y se analizan teniendo en cuenta el análisis sintáctico proporcionado por el York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English. Las conclusiones principales del trabajo tienen que ver con las clases verbales, las construcciones y las alternancias. También se llega a algunas conclusiones relativas a la variación y la competencia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".