MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110723597 · doi:10.7202/039608ar

Proverbes : transparence et opacité

2010· article· fr· W2110723597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Georges Kleiber

Bibliographic record

VenueMeta Journal des traducteurs · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notre contribution a pour objectif d’examiner la question de la transparence des proverbes, tout particulièrement celle des proverbes métaphoriques. Dans une première partie, nous exposerons en quoi consiste exactement la transparence sémantique assignée aux proverbes métaphoriques ; dans la seconde, après avoir rappelé notre approche hiérarchique des proverbes, nous montrerons comment le statut superordonné des proverbes a comme corollaire le maintien de la transparence du sens littéral ou compositionnel. Chemin faisant, se confirmera la justesse d’un traitement des proverbes comme une catégorie sémantique en soi.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0120.023
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeta Journal des traducteursSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207