Construction du savoir langagier en français à la Légion étrangère : la double hybridation linguistique dans l’interlangue des légionnaires russes et polonais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse à l’acquisition du français par les locuteurs russes et polonais servant à la Légion étrangère. Le contexte d’acquisition du français est tout à fait particulier dans ce corps d’armée : plurilinguisme et communication exolingue produisent un input singulier, transformant la langue française en un hybride linguistique à définir, produit de jargon militaire, légionnaire, de mots empruntés aux langues fortement représentées à la Légion et de tournures stéréotypées dont les soldats ne connaissent pas la signification mot à mot. L’étude en cours tend à prouver l’existence d’un véritable légiolecte, permettant l’intercompréhension au sein des régiments, mais confrontant les recrues à de grandes difficultés de communication avec le monde civil. Dans l’étude d’énoncés de légionnaires, nous distinguerons les marques transcodiques de la langue maternelle des recrues des formes hybrides caractérisant le langage de la Légion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".