La langue croate, serbe, bosniaque et monténégrine (Croatian, Serbian, Bosniakian, and Montenegrin)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Imaginez situation ou les francophones de France, de Belgique, du Canada et de i'Afrique se mettent d'un coup a pretendre parler des differentes et a appeler leurs langues par des noms differents. C'est exactement le cas des locuteurs serbo-croates en Croatie, en Serbie, en Bosnie et au Montenegro. La reponse a question sur l'etat reel de situation linguistique en Croatie, Serbie, Bosnie et au Montenegro est simple et bien connue, puisqu'il est frequent d'avoir au niveau mondial plusieurs nations parlant une meme langue, et qu'il existe en meme temps des particularites linguistiques au niveau natlonal. C'est le cas de toutes les majeures du monde et egalement celui de nombreuses minoritaires. Chaque langue dans cette situation a plusieurs centres et variantes nationales, ce qui s'appelle en linguistique la langue polycentrique standard. English Abstract: On the basis of the comparison with the countries where the French is spoken, this paper describes the linguistic situation in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Montenegro. For such a type of language, the term polycentric standard language is common in sociolinguistics. The role of South Slavic political elites in spreading the belief about one country-one language is discussed. The strategies used to reinforce this belief are outlined. The paper also discusses the mismatch between culture and nation, and also between culture and language.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".