Structure de l'enonce oral spontane en thai standard (siamois) : etude prosodique et enonciative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le role de la prosodie dans la structuration de discours oral spontane a fait objet de nombreuses etudes dans diverses langues. Ce present travail a comme objectif d'etudier l'interaction des faits prosodiques, syntaxiques et enonciatifs ainsi que la structuration de l'oral spontane en thai standard ou siamois a partir de corpus oral, dans le cadre theorique de m-a morel. Le rapport entre les faits prosodiques, syntaxiques et discursifs sera etudie en premier temps a partir d'un certain nombre d'enonces isoles mis en situations. Ensuite, la segmentation de l'oral spontane en unite d'analyse, paragraphe oral, preambule et rheme, par des indices prosodiques, unite de downdrift, resetting, sera effectuee a partir de corpus tire de 3 situations differentes : interview formelle, recit vecu et conversation avec interaction. L'etude sur la nature morpho-syntaxique de differents constituants discursifs et sur les facteurs prosodiques particuliers seront egalement traitee dans ce travail.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".