nouvelle économie et nouvelle technologie à montréal : entre protection et ouverture linguistique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En se basant sur une recherche ethnographique menée au sein d’une entreprise montréalaise, cet article décrit les pratiques langagières et les discours sur les langues de son personnel. Nos données révèlent un milieu empreint d’un « technolecte » français-anglais, mais où le français demeure la langue de travail. Nous observons la mise en place de stratégies de gestion du bilinguisme et du multilinguisme pour répondre aux besoins linguistiques de l’entreprise. Le discours des employés sur le bilinguisme français-anglais révèle des contradictions fortes et si le bilinguisme est perçu comme un avantage et nécessaire pour être concurrentiel individuellement et collectivement, il est également perçu comme dangereux pour la vitalité de la langue française. De fait, les propos des participants mettent en évidence des tensions qui reflètent les enjeux de l’adaptation à un contexte en changement.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".