MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117167347 · doi:10.7202/602572ar

Qu’entendre par « grammaire traditionnelle »?

2009· article· fr· W2117167347 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jean-Claude Chevalier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Linguistics and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constatant que l’on emploie souvent le terme de « grammaire traditionnelle » pour désigner une entité assez vague, l’auteur tente de cerner ce qu’il estime un point critique : la naissance de grammaires françaises qui tentent d’adapter les analyses de la Grammaire générale aux besoins nouveaux de l’enseignement définis lors de la création des Écoles centrales, puis des Lycées (fin XVIII e — début XIX e siècle). Il étudie les points essentiels du dispositif : création d’une syntaxe sémantico-morphologique, d’une conjonction analyse grammaticale/syntaxique. Il estime que les défauts aujourd’hui dénoncés de cette grammaire ont pour origine le rôle trop large donné à cette grammaire qui excédait les capacités d’analyse qu’elle offrait.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicHistorical Linguistics and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207