Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malgré la réfutation décisive par Shibatani (1972 et 1973) et Sommerstein (1974 et 1977) des arguments de Postal (1969) contre la possibilité et la nécessité de formuler des contraintes phonotactiques, l’argument portant sur la redondance semble toujours valable, même si on élimine les contraintes de structure morphématique (CSM) (Kiparsky 1982). L’objectif de cet article est de démontrer que la réponse appropriée à l’argument de la redondance de Postal est d’éliminer les règles phonologiques. Je maintiendrai que toutes les alternances vraiment phonologiques sont gouvernées par des conditions de bonne formation (CBF) formulées, disons, à la façon de Selkirk (1982), et que ces CBF déclenchent une stratégie parmi un ensemble universel de stratégies de réparation afin de corriger les violations au moment et à l’endroit où elles se produisent
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".