Joual en stock: The Controversial Issue of Language Quality and Autochthonous Standardization in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is a language variety of Quebec French that is considered either excessively archaic and "folkloristic" or vulgar and "corrupted" due to contact with English an appropriate medium of expression to translate a flagship of Francophone popular culture such as the Tintin comic series for a French-Canadian audience? This is the question that stirred up a highly publicized controversy in Quebec media when, in October 2009, a Quebec-French version of the comic album "Coke en stock" was presented to the public by Franco-Belgian publisher Casterman under the title "Colocs en stock." In order to understand this controversy, it has to be embedded in the context of the discussion on the "language quality" (la qualité de la langue; Cajolet-Laganière/Martel 1995: 75ff.) in Quebec that has been the subject of intense debate for several decades since the so-called Quiet Revolution of the 1960s.KeywordsStandard VarietyLanguage VarietyLanguage PlanningVernacular LanguageQuiet RevolutionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".