Les formes verbales surcomposées à valeur expérientielle en Suisse romande
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le français de Suisse romande présente de nombreuses particularités, qui concernent tous les niveaux de la langue. Parmi celles-ci figure un paradigme de temps verbaux surcomposés traditionnellement qualifiés de régionaux , qui se distinguent du type standard , à sens résultatif, à la fois sémantiquement et morphologiquement. Sur le plan sémantique, les surcomposés régionaux produisent un sens particulier que l’on appelle, depuis Zandvoort (1932), parfait d’expérience ( perfect of experience ). Sur le plan morphologique, ces temps verbaux se construisent par insertion du morphème eu dans le syntagme verbal composé (alors que les surcomposés standards se construisent par composition de l’auxiliaire). L’article discute le statut sociolinguistique des surcomposés expérientiels en Suisse romande. Il dément quelques idées reçues concernant l’âge et le statut socioprofessionnel des usagers de ces formes, et mentionne divers textes et anecdotes montrant la diversité des attitudes que la population romande peut avoir vis-à-vis de celles-ci.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".