MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619416738 · doi:10.17118/11143/10175

Langue romane ou romande ? Variété autonome ou bribe de continuum ? Un siècle de construction du francoprovençal dans la Gazette de Lausanne (1875-1988)

2016· article· fr· W2619416738 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCircula · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le francoprovenal ne compte plus de jeunes locuteurs natifs en France (rgion Rhne-Alpes), mais on en trouve en Italie (Val d'Aoste) et en Suisse (Valais). Cette langue ne au VI e sicle et identifie au XIX e , parfois littraire mais jamais administrative, souvent appele patois, jouit d'un faible prestige. Elle fait cependant l'objet d'un discours collectif qui mrite l'analyse, s'agissant de ses liens avec le provenal, le franais ou l'allemand, de sa disparition ou de sa revitalisation. Pour tudier ses reprsentations en Suisse romande, nous nous appuyons sur les textes de la Gazette de Lausanne dans lesquels apparat le terme franco-provenal, de 1875 1988 (premire et dernire occurrences). Ce terme (accompagn ou non de patois) contribue la construction de diverses communauts imagines, associes la patrie (cantonale ou nationale), la communaut linguistique francophone (face aux germanophones majoritaires) ou une entit transnationale regroupant des rgions suisses, franaises et italiennes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it