MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411846913 · doi:10.5430/elr.v14n2p1

Recognizing Lexical Units in Portuguese

2025· article· en· W4411846913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Leonor Scliar-Cabral

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Linguistics Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortugueseLinguisticsNatural language processingComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing the lexical units in the speech chain in Portuguese is one of the most difficult problems in processing, as the listener must delimiting them, facing distortions, pauses and hesitations, in addition to sociolinguistic and contextual phonetic variants. Such phenomena indicate that, in a pre-lexical phase of recognition, the receiver restores the information received, with inferences through the crossing of contextual data extracted from utterances (intake) with those coming from their permanent memories (topdown processes). The boundaries between lexical units are opaque, particularly when they are clitic due to external closed juncture or sandhi. Spontaneous speech frequently presents distortions and ruptures, instead of signaling ways to the listener, for dividing the speech chain into larger, gradually smaller phrases, until reaching lexical units. There are even ruptures at the inframorphemic and even intrasyllabic level. The difficulty in delimiting is very great when the listener is faced with new words. The methodology is bibliographic and I examined the texts of researchers who have addressed the topic. I conclude that the absence of isomorphy between the phonological and the morphosyntactic words challenges a scientific explanation of how the listener solves this contradiction, since, for the lexical item, she/he must pair the intake with the respective phonological lexical item in her/his mental dictionary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Linguistics ResearchSame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207