Les frontières linguistiques à Québec : le rôle des interactions scolaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Quebec English-speaking population has always formed a demographic minority. Comprising 25% of the population at the creation of Confederation, this proportion declined to 8.2% in 2006. However, the English-speaking group in Quebec only started to perceive itself as a minority in the 1970s, at which time the new term “Québécois” encouraged them to redefine themselves in relationship to the identity affirmation of this “new” Other. Research on Quebec Anglophones was first undertaken during this period of political and social turmoil. Still, until now there have been few studies on their minority status from the perspective of ethnic boundaries established by social agents in local interactive situations. In this article we shall examine linguistic boundaries negotiated in the context of Quebec City, based on the narrative of young adults who attended English high school there. Indeed, the qualitative interviews that we conducted in 2008–2009 with thirty-three young adults suggest a clear boundary between Francophones and Anglophones—a boundary which was reinforced by the very manner in which the Francophone Other regarded their English school counterparts in Quebec. We conclude that there may be several different ways of testing linguistic boundaries in Quebec.
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 | 0.032 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".