MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Représentation du sens linguistique II

2007· book-chapter· fr· W1552466544 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Duffley

Bibliographic record

VenueChamps linguistiques. Manuels · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La séquence be + - ing , connue sous le vocable de « la forme progressive », est définie par la plupart des grammairiens de l’anglais comme une expression de l’aspect imperfectif. L’auteur de cette communication relève cependant des cas où la forme progressive exprime des actions entièrement accomplies, c’est-à-dire un aspect de type perfectif. Une explication de ces emplois est proposée qui remet en cause l’analyse traditionnelle selon laquelle la forme progressive est une forme verbale dont le contenu sémantique peut être défini par opposition aux autres formes du système verbal anglais. Cette « forme » est plutôt à analyser comme une construction syntaxique dont la signification est une fonction du contenu sémantique de chacun des éléments qui la composent, du rapport syntaxique entre ces éléments et de l’apport de facteurs tels l’ordre des mots.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChamps linguistiques. ManuelsSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207