Normes et usages de la langue en politique
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce dossier rassemble des textes qui se proposent d’analyser les fonctionnements de la variation linguistique du français en discours politiques et médiatiques dans son rapport aux normes et aux évaluations qu’elles autorisent. Il accueille des études concernant aussi bien la variation phonétique (l’« accent ») que les variations de nature grammaticale (utilisation de certains formes verbales) et lexicale (régionalismes, emprunts). La mise en évidence de telle ou telle variation, en regard de la norme (usuelle, légitime…) et surtout de ses effets (distinction, discrimination/stigmatisation…) permet de prendre toute la mesure du poids des représentations sociolinguistiques des Français et des Québécois concernant, ici, l’exercice de la langue française sur ce marché linguistique particulier qu’est la communication politico-médiatique. This issue deals with the connections between linguistic variation in political and media discourses and the judgement this variation from the standard french may imply. It is composed by studies in phonetic variation (the « accent ») and grammatical (use of specific verbal forms) and lexical changes (regionalisms, moan words). The specific variation from standard french and the different kinds of social consequences (distinction, discrimination / stigma...) of this variation shows the importance of sociolinguistic representations that French people and Quebecers have on their tongue on this specific linguistic market that is the political and media communication.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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 it