La dynamique de la variation pronominale : micro-diachronie des formes simples et complexes en français montréalais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine la variation entre les formes non clitiques simples ( nous , vous , eux ) et leurs correspondants complexes composés avec autres ( nous autres , vous autres , eux autres ). L’étude mesure l’avancée des formes simples sur une échelle micro-diachronique entre 1971 et 2012. L’analyse variationniste d’entretiens sociolinguistiques recueillis en 2012 indique un changement en faveur des formes simples (48 % contre 8 % en 1971). En 2012, les formes simples sont favorisées par les jeunes, les femmes et les locuteurs des couches haute et intermédiaire de l’échelle sociale. L’analyse montre que les jeunes poussent le changement à chaque nouvelle génération. Enfin, la comparaison indique une stabilité des contraintes linguistiques entre 1971 et 2012, la forme simple étant favorisée à la première personne et lorsque le pronom est complément d’une préposition.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".