Bibliographic record
Abstract
LA PERSPECTIVE CENTRO-PÉRIPHÉRIQUE EN LINGUISTIQUE 1. Avant-propos Voici quelques réflexions sur les possibilités, promesses, difficultés et quelques points d'interrogation relatifs à l'approche linguistique centropériphérique.Le but est également d'établir un pont entre notre symposium à Nové Hrady en 2009 et le volume thématique des Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2, de 1966, réunissant un nombre d'analyses marquantes telles que celle de František Daneš, l'auteur du premier article, et de Josef Vachek, le rédacteur en chef du volume.En tant qu'invité au symposium, j'aimerais féliciter le groupe Radimský de l'Université de Bohême du Sud sur le projet de repenser certains principes du Cercle linguistique de Prague en lui donnant une dimension francophone.Ce qui est bien à propos, étant donné que la langue française -ne l'oublions pas -était dès le début la langue de prédilection des Travaux de la linguistique pragoise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".