MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997575029 · doi:10.7202/057393ar

L'amour de la langue et les langues de l'amour

2005· article· fr· W1997575029 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jean Lafontant, Martin Thibault

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude sur les pratiques linguistiques des jeunes franco-manitobains, leur sentiment d'appartenance à la communauté française, leurs affiliations culturelles subjectives et les effets de ces facteurs en ce qui a trait au choix du partenaire affectif et, éventuellement, du futur conjoint suggère que l'assimilation linguistique observée au Manitoba n'est pas seulement le résultat d'une augmentation de l'exogamie. Outre, bien entendu, les contraintes structurelles multiples, parmi lesquelles il faut compter le nombre, la densité des francophones ainsi que l'étendue et l'influence relative de leur réseau institutionnel, l'assimilation serait la conséquence d'un phénomène plus large: la modernisation des communautés canadiennes françaises, leur acculturation aux valeurs par lesquelles la société canadienne se caractérise elle-même, telles que les libertés et droits individuels, l'égalité des chances. Or, l'adoption des valeurs de la modernité tend à miner la substance sinon la valorisation idéologique des traditions, le maintien de communautés homogènes et endogames, malgré la politique officielle canadienne de reconnaissance et de promotion des minorités de langue officielle et autres groupes culturels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sociographiquesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207