Norma de pronunciación en Quebec: Actitudes, representaciones y percepciones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este articulo presentamos un estudio de percepcion sobre la norma de pronunciacion quebequesa. El estudio recuestiona la hipotesis tradicional relativa a la norma de pronunciacion del frances que postula que, a diferencia de lo que ocurre en otras lenguas de gran extension, el frances cuenta solo con un centro normativo (Paris). Esta problematica se aborda en el marco teorico de la linguistica perceptiva de las variedades y sobre la base de una investigacion empirica sobre las representaciones y actitudes (perceptivas) de 101 hablantes de Quebec y de Montreal respecto a cuatro estimulos representativos de hablantes modelo de Quebec, de la Suiza francofona y de Paris. Los resultados indican que actualmente, ademas de la pronunciacion parisina, una pronunciacion regional quebequesa debilmente marcada podria gozar no solo de un prestigio latente, sino tambien de un prestigio manifiesto. Los resultados implican la necesidad de una nueva definicion del concepto de norma de referencia, que ya no seria de naturaleza monocentrica, sino claramente policentrica.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".