Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce chapitre propose une analyse de la valeur des langues dans l'activite professionnelle en mettant l’accent sur l'estimation des differentiels de revenu du travail qui peuvent etre attribues aux competences linguistiques des individus. Une attention particuliere est portee aux etudes qui evaluent la rentabilite des competences en francais, notamment sur la base de donnees suisses et canadiennes. L'auteur propose ensuite trois prolongements possibles de la question : (i) les manieres alternatives d’aborder la valorisation des competences linguistiques sur le marche du travail, (ii) la transposition au plan macro-economique de considerations qui relevent, pour l’essentiel, de l’analyse micro-economique ; (iii) les taux de rendement sociaux, qui proposent une lecture de la rentabilite des competences sur le plan de la collectivite. Il ouvre ensuite une discussion des differents resultats exposes dans ce chapitre sous l’angle des politiques publiques, notamment des politiques linguistiques.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".