Les unités de mesure impériales et métriques en français québécois ( <i>une livre de beurre</i> , <i>un litre de lait</i> , <i>trois pieds de haut</i> , <i>cent mètres d’ici</i> ) : un système mixte qui fait du millage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper provides an overview of the lexical changes that have occurred since 1970 in the paradigm of lexemes referring to measurement in Québec French spoken in informal and semi-formal contexts. The study is based on an exhaustive inventory of lexical units, specific to the British Imperial System or English System (ES ; e.g., pouce ‘inch’, livre ‘pound’) and the Metric or International System (IS ; e.g., mètre ‘metre’, kilo(gramme ) ‘kilogram’), present in 7 oral corpora, of which the recordings were made between 1970 and 2020. In addition, a survey was carried out in spring 2023 with 12 speakers to determine their use of ES or IS in various everyday situations. It is generally thought that older speakers are partly responsible for the remarkable preservation of a small group of imperial units in Québec French. The data collected in the corpora and in the survey show that this perception is at odds with reality. The paper points out that there are referential contexts in which speakers, regardless of their age, are naturally inclined to use imperial units, and other contexts in which they are led to opt for metric units.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".