MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251989519 · doi:10.4000/geolinguistique.2352

Notes sur la distribution géographique de certaines formes pronominales atones dans les parlers des Alpes‑Maritimes (PAM)

2020· article· fr· W4251989519 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Mooney, David Heap

Bibliographic record

VenueGéolinguistique · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous analysons des données des cahiers PAM (Parlers des Alpes-Maritimes, Dalbera, 1994), provenant d’entrevues orales menées entre 1972 et 1981. Nous examinons les pronoms atones objets des différentes localités afin d’identifier les variations morphologiques à travers cette région ainsi que des systèmes pronominaux distincts. Nous comparons nos données avec celles des études antérieures, notamment les résultats de Dalbera (1985-1986, 1994) et de Sumien (2006). Nous constatons aussi une forme distincte (non syncrétique) pour le pronom datif à la troisième personne du pluriel, lor, que les locuteurs emploient dans seulement une des localités pour lesquelles nous avons des données, ainsi qu’une forme opaque, n’i’n, qui représente la fusion du pronom datif avec le pronom génitif dans la partie occidentale des Alpes-Maritimes. Nous comparons la distribution géographique de cette forme opaque n’i’n avec celle des systèmes pronominaux.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGéolinguistiqueSame topicMedieval European Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207