La surdétermination du sens par l’emploi abusif de l’article défini pluriel dans la presse écrite ivoirienne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les règles d’usage de l’article défini n’empêchent pas des dérives dans l’utilisation qu’en font bien des usagers. Le cas de et dans la presse écrite ivoirienne augure d’une stratégie de communication. De fait, l’usage abusif de l’article défini pluriel participe de la construction du sens du fait de la surdétermination par généralisation qui en résulte, du diptyque objectivité/subjectivité. S’il y a un excès dans l’emploi du signe les sur toute signification assignable, c’est parce que le dit de l’écrit de presse est surtout surdéterminé. La surdétermination est le mécanisme même de production du sens. Cet art de la grandiloquence n’est pas neutre, surtout avec une information surenchérie. The rules governing the use of the definite article do not prevent formal deviations in the productions of many speakers and writers. The case of and in the Ivorian written media reveals itself as a strategy of communication. In fact, the overuse of the plural definite article contributes to the construction of meaning because of the over-determination by generalization resulting from it, and the diptych objectivity/subjectivity. If there is an excessive use of the sign les for all referable significations, it is because what is said in the writings of the press is particularly over-determined. Over-determination is the actual mechanism of meaning production. This art of grandiloquence is not neutral, especially with outbid information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".