Syntactic differences in oral and written scientific discourse: the role of information structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous examinerons dans cet article certaines différences syntaxiques qui se profilent à partir d’une comparaison entre une série de communications scientifiques orales faites par des chercheurs scientifiques anglophones lors d’un congrès de physique et les articles de recherche correspondant à ces communications, publiés dans les Actes du même congrès. Notre objectif n’est pas seulement de fournir un inventaire de ces différences mais également d’en proposer quelques explications. À notre avis, une analyse des différences syntaxiques relevées dans ces deux genres de discours scientifiques peut bénéficier d’une réflexion sur la notion linguistique de structuration informationnelle. Une telle approche permet en effet de cerner de plus près l’influence du contexte énonciatif sur les formes syntaxiques employées. Nous examinerons en particulier l’utilisation de quatre structures syntaxiques : l’extra-position, les énoncés existentiels, les inversions et les pseudo-clivées
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".