MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143350543 · doi:10.7202/603116ar

Ti / -tu, est-ce que, qu’est-ce que, ce que, hé que, don : des particules de modalisation en français?

2009· article· fr· W2143350543 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean-Marcel Léard

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous montrons qu’il faut désormais recourir dans le domaine de l’interrogation et de l’exclamation à la notion de « particule de modalisation de phrase » pour caractériser le comportement et le rôle de certains morphèmes du français. Contestées ou non définies, ces particules concurrencent pourtant depuis longtemps les inversions et leur nombre aussi bien que leur emploi n’a cessé de croître. Le français et le français du Québec, tout en évoluant différemment, ont en commun d’avoir développé des particules variées pour faire des phrases interrogatives et exclamatives.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207