Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Les créoles. L'état de notre savoir Dans cet article, je définis les vernaculaires créoles d'un point de vue sociohistorique plutôt que structurel et je passe en revue la littérature qui explique comment ils se sont développés. Pendant cet exercice, j'explicite des problèmes qui émanent des définitions traditionnelles et ce dont les hypothèses courantes de genèse ne rendent pas compte et j'argue que la meilleure approche est la linguistique historique et génétique. Celle-ci est fondée dans les histoires socioéconomiques où se sont développés ces vernaculaires. elle reconnaît les différents dialectes des langues lexificatrices qui sont entrées en contact avec des langues non européennes et elle articule les principes qui régissent la sélection des traits intégrés dans le vernaculaire naissant à partir des variétés en compétition. Mots clefs : Mufwene. créole, substrat, superstrat. lexificatrice. relexification
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".