Lexico-semantic variation in the territorial variants of the French language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents the results of an onomasiological-semasiological analysis of the lexico-semantic field of “education” in four variants of the French language (those of France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Canada). The research clarified the similarities and differences at the denotative and significative levels, subsequently highlighting the denotative, significative, and denotative-significative divergences. The presence of overlap at both the denotative and significative levels prompts a discussion on the variation within the lexico-semantic field. Within the semantic structure and through the emergence of denotative-significative divergences, the variation in the lexico-semantic field of “education” increases across the territorial variants of the French language as a result of the growing number of meanings. Within the lexico-semantic system of the territorial variants of the French language (those of France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Quebec), a rich layer of denotative, significative, and denotative-significative elements has developed. The domain of semantic divergences includes lexemes that are commonly used across different territories but differ in meaning at both the denotative and significative levels. Furthermore, similar deviations may affect functional and semantic categories, which is reflected in the meanings of words. As a result of these deviations, it is possible to distinguish denotative, significative, and functional-semantic divergences.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".