MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1889896355 · doi:10.7202/1032665ar

Nous/on : De la réalité linguistique à la salle de classe

2015· article· fr· W1889896355 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alain Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueArborescences Revue d études françaises · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArtPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le remplacement du pronom nous par on, fréquent en français moderne, est encore peu reconnu dans l’enseignement du FL2 au niveau universitaire canadien. Pour mieux comprendre ce retard pédagogique sur la réalité linguistique et contribuer à le réduire, nous ferons d’abord ici une synthèse des études consacrées au sujet, après un rappel historique de l’évolution des deux pronoms. Une analyse de la présentation de la première personne du pluriel dans les manuels scolaires permettra ensuite de réexaminer nos pratiques pédagogiques, non seulement pour la paire nous / on , mais aussi pour d’autres aspects du français « ordinaire », qui sont mieux acceptés dans la pratique quotidienne des locuteurs que dans le français soigné des grammairiens prescriptifs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArborescences Revue d études françaisesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207