Cachez cet accent qu'on ne saurait entendre : la langue du doublage fait au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le doublage québécois de films étrangers constitue un phénomène particulier qui retient depuis quelques décennies l’attention des chercheurs en traductologie. Ces derniers ont montré que la langue parlée qu’on y entend est fort éloignée du français québécois courant. Dans cet article, les auteurs s’intéressent à une dimension de cette langue parlée : ce que plusieurs appellent l’accent. L’objectif est de vérifier si des éléments phoniques et prosodiques, qui auraient été susceptibles d’inscrire le doublage dans la réalité québécoise, sont entendus. Les résultats mettent en évidence la quasi-absence de traits phoniques et prosodiques typiquement québécois, y compris de ceux qui sont pourtant couramment entendus dans la langue de l’information ; que la prononciation et la prosodie des doubleurs québécois se confond ainsi, en grande partie, avec celle des doubleurs français.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".