MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pode-se considerar o verbo uma unidade lexical especializada? Descrição de verbos especializados do português

2000· article· pt· W2046990334 on OpenAlexaff
Renata Stela Valente

Bibliographic record

VenueTradterm · 2000
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldArts and Humanities
Topiclinguistics and terminology studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Os discursos de especialidade utilizam certas categorias gramaticais que não são tratadas ou que não são adequadamente tratadas pela terminologia. Entre elas está o verbo, apresentado neste artigo. Discutimos as limitações da terminologia para tratar das unidades verbais e propomos uma descrição dessas unidades, que chamamos unidades especializadas, no âmbito do modelo “Lexicologia Explicativa e Combinatória” (Mel’cuk <em>et al</em>. 1995). Por meio de exemplos extraídos de textos da micro-informática redigidos em português, mostramos que o conhecimento das unidades verbais é tão necessário quanto o conhecimento das unidades nominais (termos) para a tradução e redação especializadas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.211 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTradtermSame topiclinguistics and terminology studiesFrench-language works237,207