Un aspect peu connu de la francophonie canadienne de l’Ouest: le français hexagonal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the little known aspects of the history of “la francophonie” in Western Canada is its inherent complexity, due largely to the fact that it is based on three distinct sources: first, the Mitchifs, descendants of the early “coureurs des bois”, followed nearly a century later by colonists coming either directly from Lower Canada or from the American states where the French-Canadians had already settled (the New England states and the Midwest), and third, the relatively important presence, in a number of rural communities, of colonists from France, Belgium and Switzerland. These French-speaking colonists began arriving in the West from the 1880s on and continued doing so until the 1930s. These immigrants were mostly farmers, stockbreeders or blue collar workers and they founded a number of communities where they constituted an important majority or they settled in already established French-speaking villages in sufficient numbers to exert a noticeable and durable influence on the local vernacular speech. In this study, we briefly review the history of a number of these communities and describe the few linguistic descriptions that have been made of this unique phenomenon in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".