Dualité et convergence : l’incidence de la dualité linguistique sur la francophonie canadienne et l’imaginaire national
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article remettra en question la perception selon laquelle la Loi sur les langues officielles (LLO) présente une vision individualiste des droits linguistiques canadiens. Il est important de souligner comment la vision effectivement plus individualiste de la version initiale de la LLO a évolué au cours des 50 dernières années en une vision beaucoup plus communautaire, se rapprochant davantage de la perspective d’André Laurendeau que de celle de Pierre Elliott Trudeau. En effet, la version révisée de la LLO de 1988, dans laquelle le discours de la dualité linguistique est manifeste, reproduit implicitement l’argument de la Commission royale d’enquête sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme voulant la reconnaissance du Québec comme société distincte. En reconnaissant la vision communautaire de la LLO, il est possible pour les communautés franco-canadiennes de renouer leurs liens. Cet article utilisera une approche combinant l’analyse du discours et l’analyse de politiques.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".