Gramatikalizace adjektiva "like": procesy a jejich hranice
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
4 ABSTRACT This thesis provides a description of the incipient grammaticalization of like between the end of the Old English period and the beginning of the Middle English period. During the examined time period, like was gradually losing the attributes that defined its categorial status as an adjective and began to function as the head of a prepositional phrase. Since the process of grammaticalization is inherently gradual, both the adjectival and the prepositional like were found to coexist as a result of the process of layering. Therefore, 10 parameters were established to determine which instances of like were more adjective-like and which were more preposition- like. The empirical part is based on the analysis of the 371 instances of the OE variants of like found in The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose (YCOE) and the 232 instances of the ME variants of like found in The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition (PPCME2). The sample is examined from the morphological as well as the syntactic point of view. Compared to the YCOE corpus, the findings in the PPCME2 corpus revealed a more advanced stage of grammaticalization. While some of the changes are not specific to like and affected other adjectives as well (the loss of inflectional endings, the fixed...
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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