La percepció de l’entonació declarativa i interrogativa per part de parlants bilingües castellà-català i monolingües castellà de Barcelona
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El present treball estudia la percepció dels patrons entonatius declaratiu i interrogatiu del català i el castellà de Barcelona per part de parlants bilingües català-castellà i monolingües castellà de Barcelona. Es van realitzar tests perceptius a 65 jutges bilingües i monolingües amb estímuls prosòdics barrejats de castellà i català de Barcelona. Els resultats demostren, en primer lloc, que els parlants bilingües no discriminen codi (llengua). L’entonació, per tant, és percebuda com a aplicable a ambdues llengües. D’altra banda, els parlants monolingües distingeixen codi i modalitat (declarativa, interrogativa), però poden arribar a confondre’ls erròniament. Considerant això, podem començar a conèixer la percepció de l’entonació en casos de bilingüisme, la qual cosa ens permet descobrir el funcionament de l’entonació en situacions de contacte de llengües per poder trobar patrons generals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".