MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008685146 · doi:10.1017/s0959269512000014

How pluricentric is the French language? An investigation of attitudes towards Quebec French compared to European French

2012· article· en· W2008685146 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of French Language Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchSolidarityContext (archaeology)Dimension (graph theory)AP French LanguageSociologyPolitical scienceLinguisticsHistoryLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of a study that employed a questionnaire and a matched-guise experiment to investigate the attitudes that Quebec francophones, anglophones, French-English bilinguals and allophones hold towards Quebec French compared to European French. The findings indicate that attitudes towards Quebec French on the solidarity dimension have improved since the 1980s, while attitudes on the status dimension have remained the same. These findings are interpreted in the context of the burgeoning of Quebecers’ sense of belonging to their society on the one hand, and the tradition of viewing French as a monocentric rather than a pluricentric language on the other hand.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.290 · 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