Statistical Inquiry and the Management of Lingulstic Plurality in Canada, Belgium and Switzerland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is (i) to account for the emergence in Canada of an intense cognitive activity related to (and which at the same time contributed to) the political-linguistic equilibrium of the country and (ii) to demonstrate how, through the work and discussions of statisticians, demographers, sociologists, and other “experts” on language issues, statistical norms have shaped political norms and vice versa, giving rise to a specific mode of managing linguistic plurality. To do this, we will take into account the cases of two other countries where language has also been an important focus for identity, but where it did not give rise to comparable statistical interest: Switzerland and Belgium. The two aspects we will consider and whose weight we will try to assess in each case are: (1) the political-linguistic equilibrium of the country, which includes (a) the respective sizes of the communities and their evolution during this century, (b) the territorial homogeneousness or heterogeneousness of linguistic distribution as defined by its coincidence with political borders, (c) the way the geopolitical environment affects each community, (d) the social status of each language, and (e) its attractiveness, notably on immigrant population; and (2) the political-linguistic regime which manages relations between communities and which we can analyze as made up by (a) the general constitutional order, (b) the specific constitutional requirements dealing with language, and (c) the distribution of rights and duties established through various laws.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".