MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W252980456

Les phrases [si P, Q] sou la stratégie de l'alternative dans deux "Proverbes" de Musset

2012· article· fr· W252980456 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Magri-Mourgues

Bibliographic record

VenueL Information Grammaticale · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Linguistic Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A partir du corpus des deux Proverbes de Musset qui fournit un ensemble de 135 occurrences de si, autres que l’adverbe intensif, l’enjeu de cet article est d’articuler analyse linguistique et interpretation stylistique, en etudiant comment les proprietes des propositions en si sont exploitees dans les deux Proverbes de Musset d’une part et comment, d’autre part, elles peuvent etre interpretees pour en decouvrir les enjeux argumentatifs ou dramatiques et y trouver des revelateurs du regard narquois de Musset sur les relations humaines et sur une certaine maniere d’envisager la vie.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Information GrammaticaleSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207