MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047612559 · doi:10.4000/linx.6671

Deux dictionnaires informatisés de Jean Dubois et Françoise Dubois-Charlier, leurs ultimes travaux

2020· article· fr· W3047612559 on OpenAlexaff
Guy Lapalme, Denis Le Pesant

Bibliographic record

VenueLinx · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notre article décrit la structure des ressources lexicales Les Verbes Français (LVF) et le Dictionnaire Électronique des Mots (DEM) élaborées pendant plusieurs années par Jean Dubois et Françoise Dubois-Charlier. Nous suggérons ensuite des utilisations possibles de ces ressources pour le traitement automatique de la langue (TAL). Compte-tenu du fait que LVF a déjà fait l'objet de plusieurs travaux au cours des dernières décennies, nous insistons sur le DEM, une ressource linguistique particulièrement mal connue qui peut être considérée comme la synthèse des travaux lexicographiques de Dubois et Dubois-Charlier. Le DEM souffre d’être resté inachevé, mais son extension peu commune (près de 150 000 entrées) et surtout ses corrélations avec LVF en font une source de données lexicales de premier ordre pour la linguistique du français et pour le TAL. Nous présentons de nouvelles versions du LVF et du DEM au format JSON avec une nouvelle interface de consultation de ces dictionnaires. Nous espérons de la sorte favoriser la diffusion de ces ressources lexicales auprès de la communauté des chercheurs en lexicologie, en lexicographie et en TAL.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLinxSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207