MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972676448 · doi:10.1075/li.36.1.04mil

Description lexicographique du vocable breton KEUZ ‘regret’

2013· article· en· W1972676448 on OpenAlexaff
François Louis, Jasmina Milićević

Bibliographic record

VenueLingvisticae Investigationes · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLexicographical orderLexicologyComputer scienceLinguisticsMeaning (existential)Natural language processingRegretFrame (networking)Interpretation (philosophy)LexicographyComprehensionArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhilosophyEpistemologyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper proposes a lexicographic description of the polysemous word keuz ‘≈ regret’, from the Vannetais dialect of Breton. Our description is based both on written and oral usage, the latter being mostly that of the Pontivy region, in the North of the Department of Morbihan. Some of the wordsenses, not represented in the existing dictionaries of Breton, are described here for the first time. The theoretical frame of reference adopted is the Explanatory-Combinatorial Lexicology (ECL) of the Meaning-Text theory, a cutting-edge lexicological theory applied here for the very first time to a description of Breton data. An ECL-style lexicographic description, which, on the one hand, strives to make available to speakers all linguistic means necessary for an idomatic use of lexical units and, on the other hand, obeys formal descriptive principles, is not readily accessible to a non-initiated user. Therefore, the first part of the paper is dedicated to an explanation of the notions necessary for the comprehension of the lexicographic description proper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLingvisticae InvestigationesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207