MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133861094 · doi:10.7202/602773ar

Anaphore associative : dans quel sens « roule »-t-elle?

2009· article· fr· W2133861094 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Georges Kleiber, Richard Patry, Nathan Ménard

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage, Metaphor, and Cognition
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyAssociative propertyPsychologyMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parmi les différents problèmes que pose l’anaphore associative, il en est un qui a peu retenu l’attention des spécialistes jusqu’à maintenant. C’est celui de l’orientation du processus anaphorique. La présente étude aborde l’analyse de cette question et démontre à travers l’examen de phénomènes comme les enchaînements coréférentiels pronominaux et nominaux ou l’anaphore hypo/hyperonymique que l’orientation des relations associatives va du « tout » vers la « partie », peu importe l’ordre effectif des termes dans une énonciation donnée.

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)0.001
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.293 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicLanguage, Metaphor, and CognitionFrench-language works237,207