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 OpenAlex
Nadine Vincent

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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