Bases psycholinguistiques et neuroanatomiques de la compréhension de l'ironie chez l'adulte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<titre>Résumé</titre>La compréhension de l’ironie est un aspect linguistique complexe et hétérogène encore mal compris. Les études récentes sur le sujet ont permis l’identification de trois principaux marqueurs impliqués dans sa compréhension, soit la prosodie, le contexte ainsi que le lexique. Ces marqueurs sont ici mis en lien avec les théories psycholinguistiques et hypothèses neuroanatomiques existantes. L’objectif de cet article est d’offrir un éclairage théorique et clinique concernant la compréhension de l’ironie et ses processus cognitifs et neuronaux sous-jacents. Il semble qu’une mise en commun des connaissances psycholinguistiques, cognitives et neuroanatomiques soit une piste intéressante dans la quête d’une clarification des éléments impliqués dans la compréhension d’une assertion ironique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".