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 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.018
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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