MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028271791 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.1431

Les pronoms objets directs de la 3<sup>e</sup> personne et leur apport aux indices du genre grammatical dans le discours oral des enseignants en immersion

2014· article· fr· W2028271791 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J E Poirier, Roy Lyster

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé: La présente étude examine la fréquence et la répartition des pronoms objets directs de la 3 e personne (le, la, les, l’) ainsi que leur propension à indiquer le genre grammatical dans deux corpus oraux, l’un de 37,7 heures et l’autre de 33 heures. Le corpus principal provient du discours de six enseignants de six classes d’immersion différentes dans la région de Montréal alors que le corpus secondaire utilisé de façon complémentaire a été tiré de dialogues familiaux. Dans les deux contextes, la répartition des pronoms se lit comme suit en ordre décroissant : le &gt; l’ &gt; les &gt; la. Par rapport à tous les pronoms clitiques objets directs à la 3 e personne, 71 % de ceux utilisés par les enseignants et 54 % de ceux utilisés par les parents ne portent aucun indice du genre grammatical. Les résultats laissent entendre un lien possible entre le discours des enseignants et les difficultés qu’éprouvent les élèves en immersion à utiliser correctement le genre grammatical. En guise de conclusion, nous proposons des techniques pédagogiques centrées sur la forme qui mettraient l’accent sur le lien entre le genre grammatical et certaines terminaisons nominales.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207