La politique socioculturelle de la transcription (ou de l’écrit) : la question du français louisianais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans la polémique qui sévit parmi les ethnologues, tant chez les Anglo-Américains que dans le monde francophone, sur la meilleure façon de transcrire les phénomènes dialectaux, les adversaires ont tantôt effectué sur leurs ethnotextes un travail de linguiste, tantôt collaboré avec des linguistes pour adapter les particularités du parler de leurs informateurs. Même si certains ont fait un effort admirable pour inclure autant d’informations contextuelles que possible (avec les pauses, les rires, les gestes et les réactions), la méthode ethnologique ne devrait pas errer entre la littérature et la linguistique. Cet exposé explorera la relation entre la linguistique et la transcription dans le monde francophone et surtout les efforts faits en Louisiane pour illustrer l’importance du passage de l’oral à l’écrit dans la culture d’une société, et pour dégager les bases d’un meilleur système.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".