Obsèques Prématurées: la Disparition des Minorities Francophones et Autres Illusions Nationalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolLa question de la survie des communautes francophones hors Quebec souleve, elle aussi, bien des debats, autant aupres de specialistes francophones qu’anglophones. Certains, chiffres a l’appui, vont jusqu’a precher la disparition de ces minorites. Cependant, pour Edmund Aunger, les « obseques sont prematurees ». Quoiqu’il ne remette pas en question leur fragilite et leur vulnerabilite, il montre que la realite est beaucoup plus complexe qu’elle en a l’air. En outre, il refute deux autres idees recues : que la condition sociale des minorites francophones est appauvrie et que le role politique des minorites francophones est nsignifiant. EnglishThe survival of the French-speaking communities outside Quebec is another question that has provoked considerable debate among scholars from both official-language groups. Many observers have confidently predicted the imminent extinction of these communities, however Edmund Aunger suggests that such dire predictions are premature and, frequently, self-serving. While recognizing the continuing vulnerability of the French-speaking minorities, he demonstrates nevertheless that they have experienced steady and largely uninterrupted growth since 1871. In addition, he refutes the oft-heard claims that they are socially impoverished and politically insignificant.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".