MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2769697567

LE LEXIQUE DU FRANCAIS QUEBECOIS ET CANADIEN

2006· article· fr· W2769697567 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nijolė Regina Teiberienė

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilologyTheologyLinguisticsFeminismHumanitiesPhilosophySociologyGender studies
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Straipsnyje bandoma apibrėžti Kvebeko ir apskritai Kanados prancūzų kalbos santykį su bendrine prancūzų kalba. Kvebeko (Kanados) prancūzų kalba yra vienas is prancūzų kalbos geolingvistinių variantų ir turi, lyginant su bendrine prancūzų kalba, nemažai ypatumų ir skirtumų, būdingų tik siam variantui. Labiausiai jie isryskėja kalbos leksikoje. Straipsnyje analizuojami ir iliustruojami pavyzdžiais svarbiausieji Kvebeko prancūzų kalbos leksikos ypatumai, t.y. skoliniai is Amerikos indėnų tarmių, archaizmai bei dialektizmai (provincializmai), like is 16–17 a. prancūzų kalbos ir is įvairių Prancūzijos provincijų dialektų bei tarmių, o taip pat kanadizmai bei kvebecizmai, t.y. žodžiai, vartojami tik Kanadoje arba Kvebeke. Minėtos leksikos analizė ir pavyzdžiai patvirtina, kad Kanados ir Kvebeko prancūzų kalbos norma dar tebėra kūrimosi stadijoje, kad si kalba issaugojo daugybe žodžių, kurių jau nebeliko dabartinėje bendrinėje prancūzų kalboje arba jie cia turi kitą prasme. Taigi Kanados ir Kvebeko prancūzų kalba egzistuoja bei vystosi toliau ir ryskiai skiriasi nuo dabartinės bendrinės prancūzų kalbos.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.003

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis→French-language works237,207→