Aspects de la phonologie du schwa dans le français contemporain : optimalité, visibilité prosodique, gradience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce travail explore les proprietes du schwa dans le francais contemporain. Les donnees exploitees proviennent de quatre enquetes du projet « Phonologie du francais contemporain (PFC) : usages, varietes, et structure » (Languedoc, Pays basque, Vendee et Alberta, dans l’Ouest canadien). Les analyses sont developpees dans le cadre de la theorie de l’optimalite. Une nouvelle approche morique de la loi de position est proposee qui repose sur la complexite pedique et non sur l’isochronie syllabique. Ce travail rationnalise les representations dites turbides en developpant une hypothese de lisibilite phonetique portant sur l’interface phonologie/phonetique. Les relations turbides sont interpretees comme la projection (ancree dans la production), qui demande a ce que tout trait soit prononce, et le licenciement (ancre dans la perception), qui demande a ce que tout trait soit percu. Cette hypothese permet de traiter certains phenomenes d’opacite de contre-blocage et les phenomenes gradients. Nous proposons enfin un modele gradient d’effacement et d’epenthese du schwa. Un nouveau traitement OT de la liaison et du « h aspire » sont proposes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".