La construction < <i>DÉT</i> poss. 1re pers. sing. + <i>N</i> évoquant le divin >
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article porte sur quatre locutions, à savoir mon dieu, mon doux, ma foi et my god. Leur similarité de forme et leur appartenance à un même paradigme sémantique amènent à se questionner sur leur éventuelle équivalence sémantique et fonctionnelle dans les interactions verbales à l’oral. Pour répondre à cette question, un examen attentif des collocations propres aux locutions à l’étude est entrepris. Deux propositions sont formulées. D’une part, il y aurait une opposition claire entre les sens exprimés et les fonctions assumées par les locutions selon leur visée (rétrospective avec mon dieu, mon doux et my god et prospective avec ma foi). D’autre part, il y aurait une symétrie sémantique et fonctionnelle parfaite entre deux des locutions qui ont une visée rétrospective, à savoir mon dieu et mon doux en français québécois, et un rapprochement net entre ces deux dernières et my god.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".