Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the central tenets of Guillaumean linguistics holds that every word has a potential significate (meaning) in tongue! which conditions its various realizations in discourse. Because they are not directly observable, potential significates are notoriously difficult to describe and discuss, and their very existence is a cause of skepticism in some linguistic circles.2 The difficulty is particularly acute when the word in question has a wide range of lexical and grammatical uses in discourse, some of which are very hard to relate to others. Such is the case of the French verb avoir, the focal point of this study. Avoir presents an interesting problem for those in search of its potential significate in that at least two of its uses-the expression of obligation and the formation of the future tense-would not seem to fit in with the others. While the fully lexicalized, partially dematerialized (bleached), and auxiliary uses of avoir share a common resultative and retrospective orientation, the avoir a + infinitive and future structures would seem prospective in orientation, situating the subject notionally before an event rather than in its result phase. This study looks at avoir both synchronically and diachronically in an attempt to understand how it has come to produce both retrospective and prospective expressive effects. It also seeks to determine whether the search for a potential significate is still a viable linguistic undertaking when dematerialization has rendered a particular word-in this case the verb avoir reduced to the status of a grammatical morpheme in the future tense-unrecognizable to native speakers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".