Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le joual, qu'il soit critique ou louange, fait partie integrante de l'identite quebecoise. Contrairement a ce que l'on a pretendu, les demeles autour de la langue parlee n'ont pas commence avec la revolution tranquille en 1960. Deja, en 1902, naissait la Societe du parler francais, qui tentait de sensibiliser les Canadiens francais a l'usage du bon parler. C'est vraisemblablement a partir de la que s'est enclenche le debat sur la langue parlee au Quebec. Le contexte dans lequel la querelle du s'est mise en branle est important puisqu'il a contribue a forger une toute nouvelle identite chez les Canadiens francais, identite qualifiee de quebecoise, annoncant ainsi une volonte nette de rompre avec l'identite canadienne-francaise traditionnelle. Si le parler joual existe encore aujourd'hui, sous differentes formes, c'est qu'il a possiblement permis a beaucoup de Quebecois de ne plus avoir honte de ce qu'ils sont et de s'exprimer a leur facon plutot que de se taire ou d'accepter de parler une langue qui ne represente pas leur realite. Il semble que maintenant plus que jamais, s'attaquer au joual, c'est s'attaquer a l'element le plus fondamental de l'identite quebecoise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".