« Wake up Québec » : du recours aux communautés francophones minoritaires dans le discours visant l’émancipation nationale du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Basée sur un corpus médiatique constitué à partir des mots clés louisianisation , acadianisation (et leurs dérivés verbaux se louisianiser , s’ acadianiser ), cette contribution propose une analyse critique des discours qui vise à mettre en lumière une certaine instrumentalisation des langues et des locuteurs de certaines communautés francophones d’Amérique du Nord. Le recours aux communautés acadiennes et louisianaises par une certaine frange de la presse et quelques blogueurs militants québécois montre, en effet, que ces communautés servent un propos qui les dépasse largement. Considérées comme politiquement défaillantes, culturellement assimilées et linguistiquement obsolescentes, ces collectivités sont brandies comme des contre-exemples afin de porter, à différents moments de l’histoire québécoise ou à l’occasion de débats linguistico-politiques particuliers, la cause de l’autonomie politique du Québec puisque, faute d’avoir accédé à son indépendance, c’est le sort commun aux Louisianais et aux Acadiens qui attendrait la population québécoise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".