Anglicismes, canadianismes et mots folkloriques dans les dictionnaires Belise (1979) et Plus (1988) : un apercu du cheminement du lexique francais quebecois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study deals mainly with two Quebec dictionaries: Dictionnaire nord-américain de la langue française which will be given the name the Bélisle (1979) and the Dictionnaire du français plus designated by the Plus (1988). We have concentrated on the words that the Bélisle (1979) accompanies with: 1- "X" designating the "anglicismes"; 2- "C" designating the "canadianismes"; 3- the "Fleur de Lys" designating the "mots folkloriques". Our goal is to see the changes that the Quebec dialect has undergone from the Bélisle (1979) to the Plus (1988) with regard to the three above categories: whether theses words still exist in the latter dictionary or not, and if so, under which of these categories, if any, they fall. In addition, we have consulted other Quebec dictionaries dating from 1880 to present. These consultations helped us determine, to a certain degree, the year an "anglicisme", a "canadianisme" or a "mot folklorique" was recorded in these dictionaries, signaling therefore their usage for the first time in the Quebec dialect. Our thesis is divided into three chapters: the first one deals with the "anglicismes", the second one with the "canadianismes" and the third one with the "mots folkloriques". Each chapter contains data of each three categories obtained from our consultations of the Bélisle (1979), the Plus (1988) and other Quebec dictionaries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".