Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la conception largement répandue dans le grand public que «l’accent» québécois reflète surtout les usages linguistiques des dialectes ruraux des provinces d’origine des colons duxviiesiècle, on opposera ici une analyse des traits de prononciation qui caractérisent cet accent. Ce sont surtout la prononciation des mots outils, les valeurs spécifiques des allophones, la base d’articulation, la prosodie et l’intonation qui établissent les caractéristiques phonétiques dominantes d’un «accent» particulier. Celles-ci sont cependant très fluctuantes au cours de l’histoire et peuvent difficilement être rapportées aux usages anciens. Seules les distributions des distinctions phonémiques suffisamment fréquentes permettent des comparaisons historiques. Dans presque tous les cas, l’usage québécois moderne reflète les usages parisiens — souvent ceux de la norme — duxviiesiècle, plutôt que les patois ou les français de l’Ouest de la France.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".