MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091632827 · doi:10.1075/li.26.1.03lam

Les notions linguistiques de figement et de contrainte

2003· article· en· W2091632827 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLingvisticae Investigationes · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguisticsExpression (computer science)Variation (astronomy)Computer scienceHistoryPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The paper addresses the question of how the notion of fixed expression or idiom has to be defined. Usually idioms are defined as expressions which are characterized by semantic opacity, lack of lexical (paradigmatic) variation and morphosyntactic constraints. However, so-called ‘free’ (i.e. non idiomatic) expressions can be shown to bear similar lexical and morphosyntactic constraints, so that the limit between ‘fixed’ and ‘free’ expressions is much less clear-cut than one would expect. The only real difference which opposes idioms from ‘non-idioms’ is semantic opacity. This theoretical problem is illustrated in the paper by a case study of regional French expressions belonging either to Quebec French, Belgian French, Swiss French or French from France. The latter research is part of a large project ( BFQS-project ) which aims at the recollection and syntactic description of all French idiomatic expressions used in Europe and/or North-America.

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.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.261 · 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