Manifestations phonétiques de la dynamique des attributions ethnolinguistiques à Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Montrealers are often categorized into three distinct groups: Anglophones, Francophones, and Allophones. However, within these groups there are individuals whose trajectories are complex, as reflected, for example, in their linguistic practices. Our interest lies in the relationship between these complex practices and the ethnolin-guistic attributions of the speakers. We concentrate on two groups of Francophones: those from Spanish-speaking families who have been in Quebec for one or two generations and those from Francophone families who have frequent English-speaking contacts. After summarizing the results of a perception test, in which Francophones from Quebec were asked to identify the ethnolinguistic affiliation of speakers of various origins based on short clips of their French, we analyze the usage of sociopho-netic variables reflecting the influence of French, Spanish, or English. The analysis indicates that phonetic variation stems from speakers’ sociosymbolic orientation, as well as certain other sociodemographic factors linked to identity construction as it relates to ethnicity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.216 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".