MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064844353

Comparison of English present perfect and German Perfekt

2011· article· en· W7064844353 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepository of TBU publications (Univerzita Tomase Bati ze Zline) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of CambridgeUniversity of OxfordYork UniversityDepartment of African American Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignSyracuse University
KeywordsResultativeGermanPresent perfectGrammarEnglish grammarPoint (geometry)Perspective (graphical)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper compares the English Present Perfect tense and the German Perfekt tense from the perspective of their uses and typical grammatical environments. The analysis considers both theoretical grammar manuals in the two languages as well as results of the analysis of data gained from German translations of English books and film dialogues. The paper employs Comrie's division of Perfect types, namely the continuative, the experiential, the resultative and the recent past functions, arguing that the only point where English and German partly overlap is the resultative use of the Perfect. The paper further mentions different motivations for tense distributions in both 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepository of TBU publications (Univerzita Tomase Bati ze Zline)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207