Les anglicismes lexicaux en français dans les sciences humaines et sociales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fast development of social sciences and humanities in the Anglosphere, particularly in the United States of America after World War II, instigated an enormous export of terminology used in these areas in all languages worldwide. The French language is not an exception to this, as an increasing number of Anglicisms are entering French as well. The paper at hand analyses the presence of English lexical borrowings in the French language in social sciences and humanities. The paper also dwells on the interventions of France and Quebec with respect to these borrowings. On the basis of a graphemic, phonetic and semantic analysis of the borrowings, the research points to some insignificant graphemic and phonetic adaptations as well as a moderate tendency towards polysemy of certain Anglicisms in the French language. As to the recommendations on the treatment of the English borrowings issued by the Commission d'enrichissement de la langue francaise (Journal Officiel de la Republique francaise) in France and by Office quebecois de la langue francaise (Grand dictionnaire terminologique) in Canada, the research shows only some moderate interventions on the part of both countries.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".