Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question du pouvoir en francophonie canadienne est intimement liée au régime linguistique. Le régime donne à la communauté francophone le pouvoir d’agir en tant que public unifié dans certaines sphères d’activité, mais il peut lui-même être pensé comme un agent de pouvoir qui structure les modes d’organisation et d’action du groupe. Cet article pose comme hypothèse que les régimes linguistiques néo-brunswickois et canadien sont aterritoriaux et que, parallèlement, les communautés francophones peinent à se concevoir et à agir territorialement. L’article propose une analyse du territoire dans la jurisprudence en matière linguistique. Il s’appuie ensuite sur une analyse de luttes territoriales menées par des francophones au Nouveau-Brunswick afin de démontrer comment celles-ci remettent en cause l’unité de la communauté francophone comme groupe d’intérêt linguistique. Ces luttes font apparaître des publics, des modalités d’action et des formes de pouvoir que les savoirs francophones ont eu tendance à négliger.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".