MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3117101486 · doi:10.17118/11143/17843

Qu’est-ce que la lexicographie parasite ? Typologie d’une pratique qui influence la représentation du français québécois

2020· article· fr· W3117101486 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nadine Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueCircula · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des dernières années, certaines productions hexagonales (guide de conjugaison, roman, film) ont voulu tenir compte du français québécois ou ont tenté de reproduire cette variété de français. Ces aventures n’ont pas toujours été heureuses, et pourtant elles s’étaient basées sur des dictionnaires produits au Québec. En analysant en parallèle les critiques reçues au Québec par ces productions françaises et par les dictionnaires qui leur ont servi de source, nous établissons dans cet article une typologie de cette branche de la lexicographie profane que nous nommons la lexicographie parasite.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculaSame topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207