MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138878554 · doi:10.7202/602735ar

L’accent italien et la cliticisation de la terminaison verbale no

2009· article· fr· W2138878554 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C.E. Spagnoletti, Marc Dominicy

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article consacré à l’accentuation italienne, nous défendons l’hypothèse selon laquelle la terminaison verbale de personne 6 /no/ a été morphologiquement réinterprétée par les sujets parlants comme un clitique pluriel. Nous allons montrer que cette hypothèse est empiriquement motivée tant par des données internes au système actuel de l’italien standard que par les résultats d’enquêtes historiques et dialectologiques. Cette analyse permettra de légitimer la contrainte phonologique, jusqu’ici sujette à discussions, selon laquelle la place de l’accent est limitée à l’une des trois dernières syllabes du mot.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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