Les municipalités canadiennes et les langues officielles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.En 1967, la Commission royale d'enquête sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme affirma le rôle critique des municipalités canadiennes en matière de langues officielles. En 1988, laLoi sur les langues officiellesfit des municipalités des partenaires de premier plan dans la promotion du bilinguisme. Or, après deux générations, on ignore quelles municipalités interviennent en la matière et comment elles interviennent. À partir d'une enquête auprès de 209 municipalités canadiennes, ce texte décrit et analyse les interventions municipales favorables au bilinguisme. Plusieurs municipalités agissent, mais le bilan est loin de la vision de la Commission royale. Abstract.In 1967, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism stated the critical role of Canadian municipalities in official languages. In 1988, theOfficial Languages Actmade municipalities full partners in the promotion of bilingualism. After two generations, we do not know which municipalities intervene in the matter or how they intervene. This article presents and analyses the results of a survey of 209 Canadian municipalities on official languages. It reveals that many municipalities intervene, but these interventions are far from the objectives of the Royal Commission and the Official Languages Act.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".