Aspects psycholinguistiques du traitement des démonstratifs : résultats « croisés » en français et en anglais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In two sets of experiment (in French and English) we tested the assumption that demonstratives (pronouns and determiners), because of their deictic procedure, may serve to re-orient the discourse, drawing the addressee’s attention to a less-accessible, less-focused discourse referent. Results obtained both in French – with the demonstrative pronoun celui-ci/celle-ci (Fossard, 2001 ; Fossard α Rigalleau, 2005) and English – with the demonstrative noun-phrase that N (that man/ that woman) highlight the specificity of demonstratives : as “break” markers (De Mulder, 1997, Kleiber, 1994), they permit to bring something new, drawing the reader’s attention to a referent which – though already introduced in the discourse – is not the one expected to ensure the referential continuity (cf. Cornish, 1999 ; Kleiber, 1994).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".