MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2309641129 · doi:10.1522/17729889

perception des differences d'intensite intrinseque :

2003· book· fr· W2309641129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Gaudreault

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologySociologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présente étude consiste à évaluer expérimentalement la perception des différences d'intensité intrinsèque dans le langage. Le matériel utilisé lors des expérimentations (tiré du corpus de laboratoire qui a servi à l'établissement des paramètres de variations microprosodiques en français québécois) est composé de phrases courtes dans lesquelles on retrouve des mots ou logatomes monosyllabiques de structure CVC. Pour réaliser cette étude, deux expérimentations ont été conduites. La première avait pour but d'établir le seuil de perception des différences d'intensité pour un stimulus donné dans des environnements similaires tandis que la deuxième consistait à mesurer l'effet de la durée sur la perception de l'intensité. Les résultats obtenus de l'analyse expérimentale semblent indiquer qu'une variation d'intensité de l'ampleur de celles observées pour l'intensité intrinsèque des voyelles se situe, dans le meilleur des cas, aux franges de la perception en contexte linguistique (voyelles dans des mots isolés ou dans des phrases). L'effet d'une variation de la durée intrinsèque sur la perception de l'intensité, toujours en contexte linguistique, semble quant à lui plus assuré pour des variations de durée comparables à celles que l'on observe avec la durée intrinsèque des voyelles.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→