Linguopragmatic features of the coverage of bilingualism in the Quebec media discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of the study is the coverage of bilingualism in the French-speaking press of the province of Quebec. The research material was 100 articles of online versions of the newspapers La Presse, Le Journal de Montréal, Le Devoir, the central theme of which is bilingualism and the official languages of Canada. The aim of the study is to identify the linguistic and pragmatic features of the coverage of bilingualism, which actually takes place in the province of Quebec with officially approved monolingualism, in the traditional media of the province. To achieve the purpose of the study, such a method as discourse analysis was applied, 320 units of discursive analysis were allocated (in this study, we consider the part of the article - a sentence, a paragraph, which highlights one aspect of bilingualism (an event related to bilingualism, the implementation of bilingualism in any sphere of public life or attitude to of these, 179 relate exclusively to bilingualism on a provincial scale. As a result of the analysis of the language material, it was revealed that the key topics are the statement of the bilingualism of the social life of the province, primarily its educational system and production process (including the need to speak English for employment), the further development of this trend and the regression of Francophonie due to the greater social significance of the English language and globalization, the struggle with the current linguistic and sociolinguistic the situation and the accusation of government structures and ordinary native speakers, criticism of institutional and individual bilingualism (although the motives for protecting bilingualism as a competitive advantage and criticism of the rejection of bilingualism are presented). The Bonjour/Hi formula is also widely covered (the attitude towards it in the Quebec press is mostly negative), bilingualism in Montreal, presented as a linguistic and ideological betrayal. The economic and legal aspects of bilingualism in the province are poorly reflected in the analyzed material, presumably due to officially approved monolingualism.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".