Essai sur le français parlé en Ontario : entre représentations et légitimité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour sa deuxième contribution, Julie Boissonneault , qui a précédemment analysé les contraintes institutionnelles qui entravent l’intention et la réalisation des études universitaires en français en Ontario, se penche ici sur la perception qu’on a de la langue des Franco-Ontariens. La langue française parlée en Ontario fait souvent l’objet d’un discours dépréciatif qui établit la compétence des Franco-Ontariens à l’aune de leurs manquements au français de référence. Or, ce discours, qui ne tient pas compte de l’enjeu de la variation interne de toute langue et des processus naturels d’évolution des parlers, nourrit des représentations à l’égard du parler qui sont souvent partielles ou fausses et qui, en retour, peuvent mener à un sentiment d’incompétence chez le locuteur franco-ontarien. Cet essai propose un regard critique sur la trialectique – « discours épilinguistique / représentation linguistique / sécurité-insécurité linguistique » – et met de l’avant la primauté de la description concertée, détaillée et critique de toute variété de langue dans son aménagement « formel ».
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Essay on representations and legitimacy of French spoken in Ontario; the object is language attitudes, with only a passing call for better linguistic description.
It analyzes representations and legitimacy of French spoken in Ontario.
Sociolinguistic essay on representations of spoken French in Ontario, not the research system.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".