Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte traite de l’inscription des grammaires formelles à l’aide de diagrammes. Au travers de l’examen d’exemples tirés de la grammaire catégorielle, de la tree-adjoining grammar (TAG) et de la grammaire d’unification polarisée (GUP), nous montrons comment les diagrammes inscrivent les opérations nécessaires pour effectuer des calculs tels que la vérification de la structure d’une phrase ou la génération de structures syntaxiques à partir de structure sémantique. Ces opérations sont assemblées dans un métadiagramme, qui établit des relations entre plusieurs diagrammes. Le métadiagramme inscrit visuellement des opérations abstraites ; ce faisant, il autorise l’utilisateur à assigner une valeur à la position relative des entités graphiques sur le plan dans le processus de réflexion, ce qui peut mener à une utilisation créative qui exploite les contraintes formelles posées.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".