MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151161405 · doi:10.4000/corpus.2538

Déplacement stylistique à gauche de verbes non conjugués en ancien et en moyen français

2014· article· fr· W2151161405 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Labelle, Paul Hirschbühler

Bibliographic record

VenueCorpus · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’antéposition d’un verbe non conjugué (participe passé, infinitif) en ancien et en moyen français a été assimilée à l’antéposition stylistique de l’islandais. Nous montrons que dans le cas du français, ces antépositions illustrent trois constructions différentes, toutes distinctes de l’antéposition stylistique de l’islandais. Dans la construction la plus fréquente, étiquetée déplacement stylistique à gauche, l’expression antéposée s’insère dans une position interne à la proposition plutôt que dans la périphérie gauche, à la droite immédiate de la position canonique du sujet, qui peut y être réalisé, contrairement à ce que l’on observe en islandais. La même analyse est étendue aux cas où le sujet est nul ou déplacé plus à gauche. Les deux autres cas sont ceux où 1) l’expression antéposée est l’élément initial d’une construction V2, une situation rare, ou 2) il y a mise en relief du verbe non fini à la gauche immédiate de la position canonique du sujet.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorpusSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207