La complexité d’un phénomène linguistique est-elle toujours source de difficulté ? Cas de l’acquisition des relatives en langue première (français et allemand)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le système des relatives est considéré comme un système complexe. L’une des implications de cette affirmation devrait être que son acquisition réserve des difficultés aux enfants. À partir d’un protocole expérimental identique réalisé auprès d’enfants français de 4 à 10 ans et allemands de 6 à 10 ans qui consiste à demander à ces enfants de restituer l’histoire qui vient de leur être lue, individuellement, l’étude montre que sur les 6 relatives du texte source, seules 2 relatives explicatives, au poids diégétique important, ont été reformulées relativement souvent par une relative, et encore, seulement par les enfants français. L’occurrence d’un pronom relatif est cependant un critère insuffisant pour évaluer l’acquisition en cours du système des relatives. En revanche, la reformulation paraphrastique des phénomènes complexes attestés dans les relatives sources (vs effacement, changement de sens et répétition), fournit un critère fiable du degré d’acquisition des relatives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".