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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.015
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; 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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