Variation sociolinguistique en français langue second
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malgre les efforts des sociolinguistes et des enseignants, r acquisition de la norme sociolinguistique persiste a poser des problemes considerables aux apprenants du francais en tant que langue seconde (L2) dans un milieu scolaire. En ce qui concerne renseignement des langues, dans les derniers temps l 5accent est mis sur renseignement de la competence communicative. En theorie cela signifie que par le biais de la langue cible rapprenant acquiert la competence grammaticale et sociolinguistique de la langue cible (Dewaele et Regan 2002). Cependant, la theorie ne rejoint pas toujours la pratique. Etant donne que le professeur et les manuels sont souvent la seule source d'input pour les apprenants, ces derniers acquierent la competence grammaticale plus facilement, puisqu’ elle est plus systematisee et plus facile a apprendre, meme sans les contacts avec les locuteurs natifs de la langue cible. Par contre, la competence sociolinguistique est plus d iffic ile a formaliser en regles precises a cause de la complexite de r interaction entre les diverses variables independantes qui entrent en jeu (Dewaele 2002a). Aussi, serait-elle plus compliquee a enseigner et a acquerir.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".