MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051325900 · doi:10.1075/lplp.24.3.03odo

Crossing the Line in Quebec and Catalonia

2000· article· en· W2051325900 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

VenueLanguage Problems & Language Planning · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatalanExogamySocioeconomic statusLinguisticsSociologyGeographyPolitical scienceEthnologyDemographyAnthropologyPopulationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The linguistically “mixed” marriage stands at the crossroads of important factors in the future of French in North America and Catalan in Europe: reversing language shift. While Quebec and Catalonia initially appear strikingly similar, one could easily conclude that if the couple exogamique is good for the future of Catalan, it will also favor francisation in Quebec. Strong evidence indicates that demographic, linguistic, socioeconomic, and even “life-style” factors may make linguistic exogamy favorable to Catalan, but marginally disadvantageous to Quebec French. With “mixed” couples (whether married or not) increasing in number in both countries, the linguistic outcome of the “mixed” household becomes increasingly important to language planners.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · 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