French Academy of Sciences and the new orthography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do learners readily adopt the orthographic corrections from 1990? They eliminate inconsistencies and irregularities (bonhommie aligns with bonhomme). They rationalize the singular and the plural of the compound names of the type portebagage, the conjugation of the verbs in -eler and -eter, the writing of borrowed words (weekend, dsidrata) as well as their plural (des matchs, des whiskys). They largely correspond to the natural evolution of pronunciation and spelling. They touch 2,400 words. The Petit Larousse and the proofreaders take this into account. If we apply them all, less than one word per page is changed. Often, change only affects one accent (allgement, connaitre, couter). Without necessarily being taught, the new spellings are widely used in Belgium, Quebec, Switzerland and France. Traditional spellings remain valid. Neither of the two spellings (neither the old nor the new) can be held to be at fault. The rectifications from 1990, which are orthographic variants, are recommended by the French Academy of science.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it