Bibliographic record
Abstract
L?Office quebecois de la langue francaise (OQLF) s?est recemment vu confier le mandat de surveiller l?evolution de la situation linguistique au Quebec et d?en faire rapport au moins tous les cinq ans au ministre. La realisation de ce mandat doit etre vue comme une continuation de ce qui avait ete amorce au cours des annees ?90. Cela etant dit, l?auteur presente dans ce texte les questionnements et les travaux preparatoires a la realisation de ce mandat, ainsi que le plan de travail qui constituera en quelque sorte l?ossature du prochain bilan. Quant aux strategies de diffusion retenues, l?auteur se fait l?echo d?une decision du Comite de suivi qui souhaite ne pas attendre la production du rapport prevu par la loi pour diffuser les indicateurs mis a jour ou nouvellement elabores, ainsi que les recherches realisees dans ce contexte, mais de le faire au fur et a mesure a travers la publication de petits fascicules et dans Internet. Le bilan consisterait alors a integrer tous les indicateurs produits en vue de poser un diagnostic eclaire, s?il en est.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".