Criteria for Selecting Trisyllabic Words as Headwords in the Chinese-French Dictionary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 2015 concluding report An Approach to Revising Chinese-French Dictionary—Resequencing Entry Words, sponsored by Lexicographical Studies Center at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, we put forward three criteria for adjusting trisyllabic words based on their disyllabic. The three criteria suggest to maintain, deprive or restore the use of trisyllabic words as headwords for separate entries. Considering the vastness of this word category, as well as it’s complicated intrinsic semantic relations and diversified grammatical features, this paper takes thirty trisyllabic words that fall in Yang Shujun’s “Nine Structure Categories” as an example to check whether the above three criteria can be applied in reality and promoted widely through a method of word prosody trichotomy (trisyllabic words are classified into three general patterns, namely [1+1+1], [2+1], and [1+2]).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".