Formes et fonctions des alternances de langues dans les romans contemporains hétérolingues au Canada : analyse assistée par Sphinx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse dix romans contemporains hétérolingues dans le but de comprendre le fonctionnement et les motivations de l’hétérolinguisme littéraire par une microanalyse, suivie d’une typologie plus générale. Des milliers d’alternances de langues sont codées selon des variables de la forme et des fonctions dans le texte, et ce, à l’aide d’une grille d’analyse créée dans le logiciel Sphinx-Eurêka. Le croisement des variables de formes et fonctions permet ensuite de dégager les traits saillants de chaque roman, ce qui mène à une typologie de l’écriture hétérolingue à la fin du 20e siècle. Cette écriture peut être représentée sous forme d’une pyramide en trois sections, partant d’une approche mimétique, pour aller vers la parodie et se terminer par une approche créatrice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".