Perspectives sur le changement linguistique : aux sources du français canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the origins of Canadian French, focusing on it morphosyntax. This approach compares written sources, both literary and non-literary, for the 19th century, to oral sources, for the middle and end of the 20th century. While it is still possible to use oral sources from the 20th century as a baseline for written sources from the end of the 19th century, this approach is more problematic for earlier centuries. The negative adverbs pas et point are examined on the basis of a corpus of old Canadian French, and it is shown that the progression of pas with respect to point was more rapid in the context of verbal negation than in the context of argument negation in France, in New France, and in Canada. During the 18th century, even though the progression of pas , as compared to point , is parallel in France and in New France, it is nevertheless the case that certain regions of France that served as sources of immigration to Canada as well as certain social groups in New France use point more frequently. The 19th century sees a progression and a uniformization of the variant pas across all social classes in Quebec. In Ontario, the variant point was conserved until a later date in its southern border region.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".