Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse aux attitudes par rapport au bilinguisme dans l’espace public anglo-canadien. À l’aide de citations tirées à même une banque de près de 800 articles de journaux publiés entre 2004 et 2009, est détaillé l’ensemble des arguments invoqués dans ce débat. La recherche démontre que lorsqu’ils critiquent le bilinguisme, les détracteurs de cette politique mobilisent des arguments presque exclusivement de nature pragmatique. En lisant cette fois les textes écrits par des gens se portant à la défense des politiques de bilinguisme, les arguments invoqués sont très souvent de nature « idéaliste ». En un mot, les « participants » à ce débat prennent part à un dialogue de sourds. Cette recherche permet de comprendre pourquoi plusieurs des arguments invoqués en appui aux politiques de bilinguisme du Canada restent, pour une partie de la population du Canada, largement inaudibles.
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 | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".