MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W150499640 · doi:10.3917/ela.154.0237

L'écart culturel dans les dictionnaires bilingues

2009· article· fr· W150499640 on OpenAlex
N. Cherifi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueÉla Études de linguistique appliquée · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’écart culturel entre deux pays reste sans doute le plus gros problème à résoudre dans le cadre de la lexicographie bilingue, notamment lorsqu’il s’agit de civilisations distinctes, comme doivent en rendre compte les dictionnaires arabes-français ou français-arabe. Il importe de rappeler sans cesseque les mots n’ont par leur exacte traduction dans une autre langue mais aumieux un équivalent. En prenant par exemple le mécanisme de l’euphémismeou en s’intéressant aux différentes désignations liées à des réalités telles quele chameau ou le cheval, on perçoit clairement les difficultés des lexicographesdans l’élaboration des dictionnaires bilingues. Et par là-même, ils sont amenésà rechercher des stratégies permettant ne pas oublier la dimension lexiculturelle des mots, essentielle pour le locuteur non natif.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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