MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963344613 · doi:10.1075/lplp.00041.gre

Quebec’s language policy and economic globalization

2019· article· en· W2963344613 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gilles Grenier

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Problems & Language Planning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationGlobalizationPopulationPurchasing powerLingua francaEconomic powerPolitical scienceValue (mathematics)Demographic economicsEconomicsDevelopment economicsEconomySociologyMarket economyDemographyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the economic situation of language groups in Quebec since the 1970s. Particular attention is paid to the contexts of economic globalization, where English has become the most used world lingua franca, and of immigration now being the major source of population growth. Viewing language as a market where supply and demand determine outcomes, the purpose of Bill 101 was to increase the value and the use of French. The relative economic position of Francophones has improved and they now have better purchasing power and control of the economy. However, the number of Francophones in the population is not expected to increase much and their proportion in the population will drop significantly. Due to immigration, the number and proportion of Allophones will increase, but Anglophones will also benefit since the proportion of immigrants who assimilate to English is larger than the proportion of Anglophones in the population. In the labor market, working in English pays more than working in French for immigrants. In spite of the progresses made by Francophones, the situation of French in Quebec remains a concern. The challenge is to integrate more immigrants into the French-speaking majority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Problems & Language PlanningSame topicLinguistic and Sociocultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207