Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ La recherche interlinguistique sur les noms de couleur Quelques considérations méthodologiques Les nombreux travaux, issus de l'étude interlinguistique sur les termes de couleur de Berlin et Kay (1969), dont les plus récents exemples sont Kay et al. (1997) et Kay et Maftï (sous presse), ont été critiqués pour les raisons suivantes: (1) plusieurs langues contiennent des mots qui expriment à la fois des propriétés de couleur et des propriétés de non-couleur; (2) dans plusieurs langues, les mots exprimant des propriétés de couleur ne forment pas une classe morphosyntaxique homogène; et (3) les soi-disant résultats des travaux qui s'insèrent dans la lignée de Berlin et Kay (1969) sont le produit d'une méthode de recherche biaisée. Je réponds à chacune de ces accusations. Mots clés : Kay, couleur, termes de couleur, sémantique lexicale, évolution des langues, hypothèse d'émergence
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 | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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.
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".