Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une synthèse des diverses orientations de recherche qui ont marqué le champ d’étude des langues en contact. Quatre dimensions majeures sont explorées : 1) l’aspect psychologique (les aspects psychologiques et neurologiques du bilinguisme, l’acquisition d’une langue seconde, l’approche psychosociale du bilinguisme); 2) les aspects sociaux du bilinguisme (les caractéristiques sociologiques des communautés bilingues, le changement dans l’usage des langues, la mort des langues, la planification linguistique, l’éducation bilingue); 3) l’usage des langues dans les communautés bilingues, (les stratégies de neutralité, le mélange des codes et les codes utilisés pour parler aux étrangers); 4) les conséquences linguistiques du contact entre les langues (emprunt, changement linguistique, pidginisation et créolisation). L’auteur illustre chacun des points par des exemples tirés d’études sur le contact linguistique entre l’espagnol, le quechua et l’aymara dans la région andine. L’article se termine par une discussion sur les perspectives théoriques de recherche dans le domaine de l’interlinguistique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".