MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979242908 · doi:10.17118/11143/16047

La polémique autour de la nouvelle politique de l’emprunt linguistique de l’Office québécois de la langue française

2019· article· fr· W2979242908 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCircula · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En janvier 2017, l’Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) a adopté une nouvelle
\npolitique dans laquelle étaient révisés les principes et les critères de traitement sur lesquels se
\nfonde son intervention linguistique en matière d’emprunts linguistiques, et plus particulièrement
\nd’emprunts à l’anglais. Or, la question de l’emprunt à l’anglais est susceptible de susciter nombre de
\ndébats et d’échanges polémiques au Québec, et c’est exactement ce qui s’est produit quand l’OQLF a
\nrendu publique sa nouvelle politique. Cet article est consacré aux débats suscités par cette nouvelle
\npolitique de l’emprunt dans l’espace médiatique. L’objectif est de montrer la dichotomie qui existe
\nentre les prises de position constitutives du débat et d’ainsi faire état de la perception actuelle non
\nseulement des emprunts à l’anglais, mais également du rapport entre français et anglais au Québec
\net, plus largement, du rôle de l’OQLF dans la société 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.259 · 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