L’Identité franco-américaine : tendances actuelles dans le sud de la Nouvelle-Angleterre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The term “Franco-American” has traditionally been used to identify francophone Canadian immigrants who settled in the northeastern United States between 1840 and 1930. This group established close-knit communities and a network of religious, educational, and social institutions that would allow them to maintain their Catholic faith, their French language, and their traditional way of life over several generations. In the past sixty years, however, the group has experienced rapid change. Researchers debate how Franco-Americans are now to be characterized as a group and, indeed, whether they continue to share a common identity. This study contributes to the discussion through the examination of data gathered during socio-linguistic interviews with 130 Franco-Americans living in four cities : Woonsocket, Rhode Island; Gardner and Southbridge, Massachusetts; and Bristol, Connecticut. A series of quantitative and qualitative analyses of this material leads us to conclude that all of the communities are undergoing assimilation, the rhythm and manner of which differs considerably from one community to another. Although many individuals still use the term “Franco-American” to describe themselves, the meaning of the term is evolving. Group identity may be strong at the level of the individual community but does not appear to exist supra-regionally.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".