MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suplir la palabra del otro. An�lisis de pr�cticas period�sticas ligadas a la representaci�n del discurso

2007· article· es· W1729840529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
María Dolorès Vivero García, Danielle Forget

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Romane Langue et littérature International Journal of Romance Languages and Literatures · 2007
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSpanish Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArticulation (sociology)Representation (politics)Period (music)HumanitiesConscienceLinguisticsOrder (exchange)SociologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLawAestheticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Articles printed in the respective Spanish, French and Canadian presses were the foundation for this research. Our aim was to study the different frontiers between the reported speech and the representation of the opinions and emotions that are related. These kinds of occurrences may have an equivocal enunciative aspect whereupon the journalist is the sole individual who had access to the interviewee's reactions. We distinguish between (i) the construction of an enunciation foyer (FE) not directly assumed by the primary speaker and (ii) the construction of what we shall call «conscience foyer» (FC) also not directly assumed by the primary speaker. Five different types of articulation were identified in order to clearly state the different phenomena in the journalistic discourse. Three categories were also designed with relations to the different corresponding discursive strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Romane Langue et littérature International Journal of Romance Languages and LiteraturesSame topicSpanish Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207