MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774841556 · doi:10.1515/ijsl-2017-0048

Du patois à l’« harpetan », entre (petite) patrie et nation imaginée: le discours sur le francoprovençal dans le<i>Journal de Genève</i>(1826–1998)

2017· article· en· W2774841556 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Meune

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of the Sociology of Language · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSpace (punctuation)National identityArtHistoryEthnologyLinguisticsPolitical sciencePoliticsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Switzerland, Francoprovençal is still spoken in parts of the cantons of Fribourg and Valais, but has (almost) disappeared from other cantons. The archives of the Journal de Genève (JdG) illustrate the evolution of glottonyms and linguistic representations, ranging from acceptance of the extinction of patois to conservation efforts, and, more recently, to hopes of revitalization. This analysis is based on two corpora organized around 1909, composed of texts containing respectively at least one occurrence of the keywords “patois” (1826–1909) and “franco-provençal” (1909–1998). These corpora also reflect identity construction based on language at a regional, national or transnational level. In the 19th century, the imagined language community applied to “little fatherlands” (cantons), to Romandie or to a cross-border space limited to Geneva and Savoy. In the 20th century, the appearance of the word “Franco-Provençal” led some people to extend the symbolic space to the whole FP area, especially to the Aosta Valley. Even though the “FP cause” remains secondary in the JdG and the discourse on “Harpetan” seems anecdotal, we observe some signs of “proto-national” construction.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of the Sociology of LanguageSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207