A Genève, Ferdinand de Saussure a professé, en élaborant progressivement son exposé, trois cours de linguistique générale répartis entre 1907 et 1911. Après en avoir examiné les notions fondamentales en suivant, entre autres cotextes, des notes de lecture du maître, l’auteur revient sur les sources et l’élaboration du premier cours. Louis Caille et Albert Riedlinger sont parmi les élèves qui ont bénéficié de ce cours.L’auteur complète la transcription de la sténographie Caille, et effectue la transcription d’un manuscrit intermédiaire mis au jour par Daniele Gambarara en aout 2011, et peut ainsi comparer avec les cahiers Riedlinger déjà connus. La triple transcription - détaillée selon les indices des articles de la remarquable édition de Rudolf Engler – permet de préciser les conditions d’élaboration du texte du Cours I.Outre l’examen des manuscrits, du manuscrit Caille et de ses annotations marginales, des recherches supplémentaires sont faites, tant sur les conditions historiques - généalogiques et administratives concernant les élèves immatriculés (au cours), inscrits (à l’examen) ou examinés (à l’épreuve) -, qu’aux archives de l’université concernant cette période pour les vérifications indispensables. L’ensemble de ces informations permet de privilégier la conjecture selon laquelle Louis Caille tenait le rôle de secrétaire de séance pour ce cours neuf dont l’introduction modifiait par ailleurs plusieurs programmes de cette université.Il en résulte que, de facto, la seule source à proprement parler du Cours I est cette sténographie Caille, contrairement à ce que suggérait jusqu’ici la connaissance des textes considérés nécessairement dans l’ordre historique de leurs acquisitions ; les éléments de la synthèse des trois cours – le Cours de Linguistique Général (CLG), publié par Ch. Bally et A. Séchehaye – sont distingués les uns des autres, et son élaboration est analysable en détail. / In Geneva, Ferdinand de Saussure professed, by developing gradually his presentation, three lectures of general linguistics between 1907 and 1911. Having examined the fundamental notions by following, among others texts, reading notes of the teacher, the author focused on sources and elaboration of the first lecture. Louis Caille and Albert Riedlinger are among the students who benefited from this lecture.The author completes the transcription of the stenography by Caille, and makes the transcription of a new manuscript releaved by Daniele Gambarara in august 2011, and therefore can compare with the Riedlinger’s already known notetakings. The triple transcription - detailed according to the ranking of the articles of the remarkable Engler’s edition - allows to specify the conditions of elaboration of the text of Cours I.Besides the examination of manuscripts, of the Caille manuscript, and of its marginal notes, additional researches are made, as well on the historical conditions - genealogical and administrative concerning the registered and examined candidates -, that on the archives of the university concerning this period for the essential checks. All these informations allow to favor the hypothesis that Louis Caille acted as a transcriber for this new lecture whose introduction also modified several programs of this university.As a result, de facto, the only source strictly speaking of Cours I is this Caille stenography, contrary to what suggested until now the knowledge of texts considered inevitably in the historic order of their acquisitions; the elements of the synthesis of the three lectures – the Cours de Linguistique Générale (CLG), published by Ch. Bally and A. Séchehaye - are distinguished from each other, and its elaboration is analyzable accurately.

Publication bias is one threat to validity that researchers conducting meta-analysis studies confront. Two primary goals of this research were to examine the degree to which publication bias impacts the results of a random effects meta-analysis and to investigate the performance of five statistical methods for detecting publication bias in random effects meta-analysis. Specifically, the difference between the population effect size and the estimated meta-analysis effect size, as well as the difference between the population effect size variance and the meta-analysis effect size variance, provided an indication of the impact of publication bias. In addition, the performance of five statistical methods for detecting publication bias (Begg Rank Correlation with sample size, Begg Rank Correlation with variance, Egger Regression, Funnel Plot Regression, and Trim and Fill) were estimated with Type I error rates and statistical power. The overall findings indicate that publication bias notably impacts the meta-analysis effect size and variance estimates. Poor FTSe I error control was exhibited in many conditions by most of the statistical methods. Even when Type I error rates were adequate the power was small, even with larger samples and greater numbers of studies in the meta-analysis.