MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378189922 · doi:10.1215/00031283-10579455

The Influence of English on Neologisms for Nonbinary Gender Identities and Sexual Orientations in Quebec French: Between Variation and Purism

2023· article· en· W4378189922 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mireille Elchacar

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Speech · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and Identity
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeologismQueerVariety (cybernetics)Identity (music)Gender studiesSociologyVariation (astronomy)InstitutionLinguisticsPower (physics)HistoryPolitical scienceArtAestheticsPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article creates a portrait of recent designations of nonbinary gender identities and sexual orientations in Quebec French. It addresses how purism and the condemnation of anglicisms played a part in this vocabulary. The most frequent neologisms in the French press in Quebec are LBGT* and queer. The Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF), Quebec’s official language institution, first condemned queer because of Quebec’s sensitive history with anglicisms and created allosexuel and altersexuel to replace it. However, these terms were found to be artificial and were not very successful, bringing the OQLF the change its initial normative judgment on queer, which is now accepted. More than the negative attitude toward anglicisms in Quebec, what played a major role in the circulation of those neologisms is the need for traditionally dominated groups to gain symbolic power by choosing their own labels, especially those used in a variety of languages worldwide, strengthening the sense of identity and belonging of historically marginalized groups and individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican SpeechSame topicLinguistics, Language Diversity, and IdentityFrench-language works237,207