MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2280322438

L'ANGLAIS, CLÉ DE L'OUVERTURE SUR LE MONDE? ANALYSE DE CADRAGE DU DÉBAT PUBLIC QUÉBÉCOIS SUR L'ENSEIGNEMENT INTENSIF DE L'ANGLAIS, LANGUE SECONDE

2015· article· fr· W2280322438 on OpenAlexaffabout
Virginie Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueCommposite · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans l'actuel contexte de globalisation, l'espace public mediatique devient le lieu d'un affrontement pour le controle symbolique des debats (Castells, 2007). A cette fin, certains outils s'averent strategiques. Parmi eux : l'utilisation de « cadres » dotes d'une forte resonance culturelle tels les mythes (Entman, 2009) ; d'autre part : l'instrumentalisation de la langue, outil symbolique par excellence. Ces deux instruments se conjuguent dans l'actuel phenomene de globalisation linguistique et, plus precisement, dans le discours « mythique » de l'anglais, langue mondiale (Grin, 2012; Watts, 2011). Par la presentation de cette problematique de recherche doctorale, nous souhaitons amorcer une reflexion sur le role joue par les mythes dans le cadrage du discours public. Nous proposons d'etudier le cas du Quebec ou le discours de l'anglais, langue mondiale, semble avoir conduit a l'adoption de mesures educatives speciales. Cela alors que l'enjeu linguistique y revet historiquement une dimension identitaire et politique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommpositeSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207