Être bilingue à Sudbury (Ontario)Étude sur le contact des langues et lareprésentation des identités
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this article, we follow the theoretical sociolinguistics procedures used by Milroy, Heller and Mougeon on the choice of language in situations of bilingualism. Fieldwork among five bilingual francophone families in Greater Sudbury / Grand Sudbury (Ontario) enabled us to know the social factors that influence their choice of language in different situations of everyday life. In addition, these families represent two subgroups of the Franco-Ontarian minority population described by Duquette: on the one hand, an elite that promotes a normative French language and the traditional values of both the French culture and, on the other hand, the bilingual speakers for whom the English language offers attractive economic and cultural resources. Differences among Francophones weaken the vitality of their community, while English is required as a lingua franca, despite the historical struggles to achieve a certain level of education, to get jobs or to access a French sociocultural development in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".