Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire examine les questions à mouvement multiple en bulgare, en accordant une importance particulière aux mécanismes qui régissent l’ordre des syntagmes interrogatifs antéposés. Outre la présentation d’un phénomène linguistique complexe et très intéressant, l’étude propose un aperçu critique des hypothèses les plus importantes émises au fil des ans à propos des interrogatives multiples. Dans un premier temps, nous discutons des différentes approches renfermant l’idée que l’ordre des mots interrogatifs au début de la proposition dépend entièrement des règles syntaxiques. Ensuite, nous présentons les analyses qui tentent d’expliquer la problématique en faisant appel à des traits spécifiques des syntagmes Qu-, tels que [animé] ou [lié au discours]. Le rôle de la topicalisation et de la focalisation dans la formation des questions multiples, les projections fonctionnelles de la « périphérie gauche » en bulgare accueillant différents syntagmes, ainsi que la résomption comptent également parmi les sujets traités dans ce mémoire.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".