Une étude comparative de la langue des signes Québécoise (LSQ) et la langue brésilienne des signes (Libras): quelques aspects linguistiques, socio-politique-culturels et historiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif principal de cet article est de promouvoir la connaissance et la comphéhension des Études Sourdes au Canada et au Brésil, à partir d’études comparatives de la Langue des Signes Québécoise (LSQ) et la Langue Brésilienne des Signes (LIBRAS). Nous faisons, aussi, une brève approche de quelques aspects linguistiques, socio-politique-culturels et historiques de la Culture Sourde, avec l’aspiration de démontrer quelques études liées aux questions de l´enseignement des langues des signes et à l´inclusion de l´individu sourd à la société, en spécial, l´histoire de l´origine de l´enseignement et des recherches dans ce domaine. Il est pertinent de signaler que cet article s´inscrit dans le cadre des études comparées, ce qui pourra être une ouverture au dialogue entre les différentes recherches et approches sur ce thème, développées dans ces deux pays américains, afin de chercher ensemble des solutions stratégiques d´inclusion sociale et d´élaboration de politiques de diversité culturelle : la culture orale et la culture des sourds
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".