Bibliographic record
Abstract
La transcription phonétique du dictionnaire Franqus obéit à deux principes : réalisme, d'abord, pour garantir sa représentativité et sa légitimité sociale ; économie, ensuite, pour assurer sa cohérence interne et contrer la redondance inutile. Seront ainsi notés tous les phénomènes distinctifs (p. ex. les voyelles longues historiques /E:, A/) à l'exclusion des variations automatiques comme l'affrication des dentales. Également tous les faits qui, sans être distinctifs, sont invariables, comme les semi-voyelles prévocaliques intramorphémiques (p. ex. pied, puis, fouine, etc., mots toujours monosyllabiques). La morphologie intervient de son côté, entre autres dans le traitement de schwa (en fonction de certains suffixes, comme -ment) et dans le comportement de certains préfixes (dis-, préfixes à finale ... o-). Une attention particulière est donnée aux schwas « paradoxaux » (qui devraient ou pourraient s'effacer mais ne le font pas) et à l'adaptation locale des anglicismes. Bref, la transcription intègre l'ensemble des faits de structure phonologiques, morphologiques et lexicaux au sens strict propres à cette variété de la langue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.026 |
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".