Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article passe en revue les relations interdisciplinaires entre linguistique et sociologie des années soixante à nos jours. Troismoments sont découpés dans le développement de la linguistique : la période structurale, les théories de l’énonciation, la pragmatique.L’auteure s’emploie à mettre en lumière les modalités différentes qu’ont connues ces relations et tente d’en faire le bilan àpartir du point de vue d’une théorie de la description. Cette dernière postule une autonomie relative de l’observation formelle dela matérialité langagière (les données langagières) comme moment précédant la description proprement sociologique des pratiquessociales. L’intérêt d’une telle perspective est qu’elle permet de reculer le moment interprétatif le plus tard possible et de faireressortir l’hétérogénéité des fonctionnements langagiers, en prélude à la mise au jour de l’hétérogénéité des logiques sociales.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".