MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126096802 · doi:10.7202/602675ar

La condition de non-contiguïté accentuelle en français : théorie et pratique

2009· article· fr· W2126096802 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Laurent Santerre

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dell (1984) soutient que la condition de non-contiguïté accentuelle, qui est propre au français, interdit d’accentuer deux syllabes consécutives dans un même tronçon intonatif. En vertu de ce principe, un mot d’une syllabe en fin de tronçon désaccentue la syllabe finale du mot précédent; il faudrait donc prononcerles seaux de l’élève roux coulentcomme si l’on disaitles seaux de l’élève roucoulent. J’ai fait enregistrer par l’auteur en studio à Paris une centaine d’exemples tirés de son article pour les analyser phonétiquement et les soumettre à des tests de perception. Certaines de ses réalisations contredisent sa théorie.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207