Combinatoire spécialisée : trois perspectives et des enseignements pour la terminologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les premiers travaux portant sur la combinatoire spécialisée remontent au milieu des années 1980 et coïncident avec le début d’une période de changements profonds survenus en terminologie, tant sur le plan théorique que méthodologique. Dans le présent article, je propose une rétrospective des idées maîtresses de ces travaux et de travaux plus récents. Je tente de montrer de quelle manière ils ont contribué à une meilleure compréhension du fonctionnement des termes, notamment de leur fonctionnement linguistique. J’ai regroupé ces travaux sous trois perspectives génériques (terminographique, textuelle et lexicographique), ce qui permet de dégager leurs apports principaux à la caractérisation de la combinatoire spécialisée ainsi qu’à la réflexion théorique en terminologie..
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".