Les territoires des revendications linguistiques. Une comparaison Bretagne/Lusace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse aux conditions de production d’un récit territorial régional unifié dans deux régions marquées par des mouvements de revitalisation linguistique (Grenoble et Whaley, 2006). La Bretagne abrite deux communautés linguistiques– bretonne et gallèse – porteuses de revendications de statut (Gusfield, 1986). La Lusace est un territoire revendiqué par les locuteurs des langues basse-sorabe et haute-sorabe. Les deux territoires régionaux revendiqués par les militants linguistiques diffèrent des territoires de l’action publique. Nous montrons que malgré des tentatives militantes de produire un récit territorial unifié de la région revendiquée, des rapports de concurrence et de domination entre les groupes linguistiques viennent morceler cette entreprise. En partant du postulat que l’action collective linguistique construit l’image sociale du territoire (Avanza et Laferté, 2005) tout autant que l’image sociale du territoire la construit en retour, nous nous intéressons aux usages militants des multiples récits régionaux et aux enjeux politiques qu’ils drainent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".