MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020184298 · doi:10.1093/ijl/ecp021

L'inclusion des Particularismes Extra-Hexagonaux dans la Derniere Edition du Grand Robert : Realite ou Mirage de la Francophonie ?

2009· article· fr· W2020184298 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Verreault, A. Galarneau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Lexicography · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesFrenchMetropolitan areaHistoryArtClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1970s, French dictionaries have opened up to the French-speaking world, notably by including a number of words and usages characteristic of the many non-Metropolitan varieties of French. Tentative at first, this opening up has intensified with each re-edition to the point that today dictionaries compiled in France can give the impression that they reflect the entirety of French as used throughout the francophonie. This is the case, for instance, with the new Grand Robert de la langue française, which was received and presented in this way by reviewers in the Québec media. Using the introductory note of the two editions and the overhaul that the Grand Robert has undergone to date, this article first briefly recalls how the dictionary's interest in non-Metropolitan features came about and developed over time, then examines the conception of the French language that the compilers have come to adopt. On the basis of an analysis of a random sample of the nomenclature, which includes a number of Québecisms, this conception is then compared with the lexicographical practices adopted in the work as a whole. Finally, it shows how, as things stand at present, the opening up of French dictionaries to the French-speaking world can have the perverse effect of producing and maintaining a linguistic mirage.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of LexicographySame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207