Interacting with the “other” Francophone between distress and enchantment. The Acadian example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article met l’accent sur les malentendus qui peuvent surgir entre francophones de regions et de pays divers socialises a des codes culturels et linguistiques differents. En s’appuyant sur des enquetes de terrain realisees au Nouveau-Brunswick et en Nouvelle-Ecosse entre 1999 et 2007, l’auteure montre que les rencontres accrues entre francophones provoquees par la mondialisation economique et culturelle agissent tant sur les pratiques linguistiques des Acadiens que sur leurs representations de ces memes pratiques. Plusieurs d’entre eux sont tirailles entre leur volonte de rester fideles au francais « local » et leur desir d’elargir leur repertoire pour communiquer sur une plus large echelle. L’auteure explique comment les secteurs touristique et artistique sont des sites discursifs interessants pour rendre compte de ces phenomenes. Si l’usage d’un francais standardise est prise sur ces differents marches, le « dire vrai », ou le francais regional, l’est tout autant et les deux varietes generent des profits symboliques et materiels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".