Dialogisme et Polyphonie: approches linguistiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le present ouvrage est constitue des communications presentees lors du colloque Dialogisme, polyphonie : approches linguistiques (septembre 2004, Cerisy-la-Salle). Par-dela la diversite des positionnements et des approches, qui tient notamment au niveau ou l'on situe l'analyse - niveau macrotextuel du discours, niveau microtextuel de l'enonce - ainsi qu'a la pluralite des theories de l'enonciation qui les sollicitent, les notions de dialogisme et de polyphonie renvoient a un meme trait de l'unite linguistique analysee : son orientation vers d'autres unites, sa capacite a faire entendre plusieurs voix, ou a representer - plus ou moins nettement - plusieurs points de vue. Le colloque de Cerisy a permis de confronter les modelisations en presence et de mettre en debat les outils d'analyse ; de decrire certaines manifestations textuelles du dialogisme et de la polyphonie ; et d'etudier le fonctionnement de certains marqueurs d'heterogeneite enonciative. C'est autour de ces trois dimensions que se structurent les trois parties qui composent l'ouvrage.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".