Feminization of Language: A Comparative Study on the Implantation of Marked Feminine Forms in Canada and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our research addresses the feminization of language, a field that developed from the need to provide job titles for women rising to positions once reserved for men. Our study is aimed at measuring the implantation of certain feminine forms in French-speaking Canada and Europe (Belgium, France and Switzerland). For each of the 48 cases selected, the study compares the hits in the Eureka.cc research tool for at least two marked feminine forms of the same job title, whether they are accepted or not by the Office quebecois de la langue francaise. The results show that there is good balance between the forms accepted by the Office and those found in dictionaries, especially Canadian publications. Overall, the marked forms accepted by the Office are used more than those that are not, in Europe and Canada (chercheuse and not *chercheure). French forms ending in -eure are often used in Canada (reviseure more than reviseuse), whether accepted or not, especially in cases where they compete with the form -euse.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".