Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".