À propos de la genèse de l’accent des Québécois : Gendron, Jean-Denis. D’oùvient l’accent des Québécois ? Et celui des Parisiens ? Essai sur l’origine des accents. Contribution à l’histoire de la prononciation du français moderne. Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval, 2007, 287 p. ISBN 978-2-7637-8615-5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette note commente un essai du phonéticien Jean-Denis Gendron sur l’origine de l’accent des Québécois, fondé sur une réunion très riche de faits et documents, dont les remarques des voyageurs qui ont visité le continent nord-américain. Ceux qui passaient au pays durant le xviie et la première moitié du xviiie siècle constataient un français impeccable, sans accent, tandis que leurs successeurs au xixe siècle s’exprimaient de façon nettement moins favorable sur le langage entendu. En étudiant les observations de ces derniers, l’auteur voit, à juste titre, que leurs jugements défavorables sont faits à l’aune de l’accent des classes supérieures de Paris, qui s’est modifié de manière fondamentale au cours du siècle postrévolutionnaire. Le commentateur conclut que cet ouvrage de fond constitue la première explication historique de la divergence d’accent de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique, entre Québécois et Parisiens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".