Les modèles de représentation syllabique, l’analyse du redoublement et la condition de satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au cours de la dernière décennie, le modèle hiérarchisé de la syllabe à été remis en question en faveur d’une représentation morique de la syllabe sans unités temporelles et sans structure interne en constituants. Le redoublement a été l’un des phénomènes utilisé dans les travaux pour alléguer la supériorité du modèle morique sur le modèle hiérarchisé. Nous présentons, à partir d’une analyse des patrons de redoublement du ponapéen, une évaluation des deux modèles de représentation syllabique. Il ressort de l’analyse que, pour rendre compte de certains faits de redoublement, le modèle morique doit incorporer les positions temporelles, des positions vides et assigner un statut de constituant à l’attaque. Nous rejetons ainsi la condition de satisfaction qui interdit les positions vides pour introduire la contrainte de satisfaction structurale comme condition de légitimation des relations prosodiques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".