Langues et cultures, systèmes et traduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous essaierons dans cet article de mettre en regard des langues de même et diverses origines afin de montrer leurs points communs et leurs différences (concernant leur fonctionnement dans un but de traduction). Ceci nous amènera à revoir la notion de « mot », de « parties du discours ». Nous pourrons montrer aussi combien la perception du monde à travers les civilisations joue son rôle dans l’organisation des langues (les traces du passé dans la pensée en sont des témoins comme le montrent les proverbes et autres composés). L’arabe, le chinois, le coréen, l’espagnol, le français, l’italien, le japonais, le polonais, le portugais, le roumain, le russe, le sanskrit, le thaï et le turc serviront de base à nos remarques et études. Toutes ces remarques nous conduiront, à travers des exemples, à la traduction en général et à la traduction automatique ou aide (dictionnaires) à la traduction en particulier.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".