Anglicisms and Students in Quebec: Oral, Written, Public, and Private—Do Personal Opinions on Language Protection Influence Students' Use of English Borrowings?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the influence of students' assessment of the official language protection regime in Quebec and their usage of English borrowings in oral and written language, as well as in the private and public spheres? Hypothesizing that survey participants, who deem Bill 101 and the language protection policy as too lax, use fewer English borrowings in any setting than do students who deem the policy to be adequate or too strong, we evaluate students' usage of five of the most frequent English borrowings found in three newspapers of the Canadian francophone written press in 2014, namely coach, condo, fun, look, and performer. With the help of a large-scale survey conducted in various universities in the Province of Quebec and the national capital region of Canada and using various quantitative techniques, we find that there is a difference in the students' usage of anglicisms between the oral and the written language and between the private and the public realms. However, we do not find any major differences in the usage of the five borrowings in any of the two domains (i.e., oral vs. written and private vs. public) between students who advocate a stricter language policy and students favouring a laxer language policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".