Un aspect morphosyntaxique du français parlé au Congo : la question du discours rapporté1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le discours rapporté pose dans la syntaxe du français parlé au Congo le problème de l’insertion dans un discours citant contenant un verbe de parole ou un verbe de connaissance d’un second discours, le discours cité sans opérer les modifications requises par le français standard, à savoir celles des embrayeurs, des déictiques, des temps verbaux et de la modalisation. Nous nous proposons d’examiner la question du DR d’un point de vue purement descriptif à partir d’un corpus oral afin de tester l’hypothèse d’une variabilité du FPC du point de vue des mécanismes langagiers et grammaticaux utilisés. Nous nous limiterons à un échantillon de situations et de « genres » de prise de parole. Plus globalement, nous nous interrogerons sur l’existence d’une norme endogène congolaise spécifique, différente à la fois de la norme de référence et de celles des autres variétés du français en Afrique en voie de standardisation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".