MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764001811 · doi:10.22129/plume.2007.48788

Comment définir le Francophone? Quelques réflexions

2006· article· fr· W2764001811 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julie Byrd-Clark

Bibliographic record

VenuePlume, Revue semestrielle de l'Association Iranienne de Langue et Littérature Françaises · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesFrenchPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article vise a mieux comprendre l’impact de la mondialisation et des ideologies linguistiques sur la construction identitaire ainsi que sur les pratiques langagieres, en definissant ce que constitue l’identite d’un/e Francophone. Il s’agit des processus d’identification vis-a-vis les discours au sujet du plurilinguisme et de la citoyennete a travers la voix de cinq jeunes d’origine italienne dans l’espace urbain, global et multiculturel de Toronto (Canada), qui sont actuellement etudiants universitaires effectuant ou ayant effectue des etudes en francais et qui sont egalement en train de completer une formation a fin de devenir enseignants de francais.  Ce travail propose une reflexion critique sur la construction identitaire des Francophones au Canada et souligne l’importance de nouveaux espaces discursifs au sein desquels il est possible de gerer les tensions dans les rapports majoritaires/ minoritaires, mais aussi pour permettre l'emergence d'identites imbriquees, ce qui cree la possibilite de remettre en question les modalites d’appartenance a la francophonie au Canada ou ailleurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.032
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlume, Revue semestrielle de l'Association Iranienne de Langue et Littérature FrançaisesSame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207