Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a survey on French pronunciation in the Nice (France) area, which attempts to determine whether southern pronunciation is being lost in that region and, if so, to what extent, on which features of the system and according to what stylistic and sociolinguistic modalities. To this end, a corpus of readings and spontaneous speech recordings was gathered through the interview of 25 subjects belonging to five families, which all spanned at least three generations and in which the oldest members were all manual workers with obvious southern accents. A Labovian-style analysis was then conducted on three typically Francitan phonetic features: mute e, nasal vowels and mid- and low vowels. Results show a shift from the vernacular variants to the standard French equivalents, with negligible gender and stylistic variation. This change can be explained in terms of convergence or opposition between the internal and external factors of evolution. To the extent that a study of 25 subjects in dynamic synchrony can be considered representative of the actual phonetic evolution of the local dialect, our survey illustrates the gradual disappearance of southern French pronunciation in the Nice area.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".