Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude sur laquelle cet article se fonde combine trois types de démarches : d’abord, l’étude du paysage langagier par le biais de l’affichage public ; des entretiens semi-directifs faits avec des Monctoniens francophones et anglophones ; des séances d’observation selon lesquelles les participants à l’étude ont été accompagnés dans leurs déplacements quotidiens. Les questionnements au centre de la recherche sont les suivants : le citoyen navigue-t-il différemment dans ce paysage selon qu’il est francophone ou anglophone ? Quels sont les indices visibles et audibles qui lui permettent de faire le choix de langue qui lui profitera le plus selon la situation dans laquelle il se trouve ? Est-ce que l’affichage public participe de la négociation de langues que font quotidiennement les Monctoniens ? Quels sont les discours qui circulent autour de la question de l’affichage à Moncton et contribuent-ils à maintenir les pratiques existantes ou, au contraire, à les changer ?
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".