A comparative study of English in advertising in France and Quebec
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study seeks to expand our understanding of code‐mixed advertising by comparing the use of English aimed at Francophone consumers in the Expanding Circle and the Inner Circle. Focusing on France and the Canadian province of Quebec, this analysis illustrates how marketing strategies differ across regional and national boundaries while highlighting the shift of English from a foreign to an additional language of use in Europe. Frenglish slogans observed in both contexts indicate that those who design advertising copy for France rely on a much wider gamut of English words and expressions to market products to local consumers. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate how the degree of adherence to language policy is closely linked to language attitudes and other socio‐cultural variables. Although both Quebec and France have a long‐standing tradition of language planning in favor of French, advertising practices differ quite significantly due to their respective socio‐historical and communicative contexts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it