Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le picard, le québécois et l’acadien partagent un héritage gallo-roman qui les distingue du français de référence. Mais entretiennent-ils le même rapport avec celui-ci? Pour répondre à cette question, nous examinons les pratiques des locuteurs dans des contextes qui favorisent un usage prescriptif et les réactions suscitées par leur utilisation. Cette analyse révèle que le picard se distingue de l’acadien et du québécois. Alors que le picard littéraire marque une coupure nette avec la norme littéraire française, les deux derniers minimisent les écarts et s’alignent sur la norme décrite dans les ouvrages de référence produits en Europe. De même, l’accueil réservé à l’emploi de ces variétés dans des contextes formels est diamétralement opposé : alors que l’emploi du picard est applaudi, celui de l’acadien et du québécois produit soit l’hilarité, soit la colère.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".