Using comparative sociolinguistics to inform European minority language policies: Evidence from contemporary Picard and regional French
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We argue that an evaluation of morphosyntactic convergence between Picard and French must consider multiple variables, comparing rates of (co-)occurrence of Picard-like and French-like variants and linguistic constraints across the two varieties. Contemporary oral data from interviews with Picard–French bilinguals and French monolinguals were analyzed and contrasted with older Picard data. While future temporal reference in Picard and in French appear similar based on frequency, linguistic conditioning reveals differences across varieties and over time. Auxiliary selection displays clearer Picard–French distinctions, especially when considering the effect of linguistic factors. The intersection of variables shows that the differences between Picard and French are qualitative and not simply quantitative. In the context of the debate over the status of Northern France's obsolescent varieties, we provide empirical evidence for a mental grammar in Picard distinct from that of French, and show the relevance of comparative sociolinguistics for language planning.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it