Types syntaxiques et types sémantiques : la phrase copulative comme palimpseste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous étudions les phrases copules comme (1) et (2). Nous essayons de faire la synthèse entre l’analyse syntaxique de Moro (1990) selon laquelle le sujet de (1b) et de (2b) en structure-s correspond à un prédicat en structure-d et l’hypothèse sémantique de Partee (1987) selon laquelle le type syntaxtique NP correspond à trois types sémantiques distincts : le Nom, le Prédicat et le Quantificateur généralisé. Nous proposons qu’un NP qui monte à la position sujet en structure-s à partir de la position prédicat en structure-d est interprété comme prédicat en syntaxe et comme quantificateur en FL. La double interprétation d’un seul constituant syntaxique nous amène à comparer des phrases copulatives comme (1b) et (2b) à un palimpseste, où un texte s’écrit par-dessus un autre. Nous proposons que les règles qui interprètent un prédicatif NP dans sa position en structure-d sont du niveau du récit tandis que celles qui l’interprètent dans sa position en structure-s sont d’un niveau linguistique distinct, que nous appelons le commentaire.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".