Idiom Understanding as a Tool to Measure the Dialect Gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tasks of idiom understanding and dialect understanding are both well-established benchmarks in natural language processing.In this paper, we propose combining them, and using regional idioms as a test of dialect understanding.Towards this end, we propose three new benchmark datasets for the Quebec dialect of French: QFrCoRE, which contains 4,633 instances of idiomatic phrases, and QFr-CoRT, which comprises 171 regional instances of idiomatic words, and a new benchmark for French Metropolitan expressions, MFrCoE, which comprises 4,938 phrases.We explain how to construct these corpora, so that our methodology can be replicated for other dialects.Our experiments with 111 LLMs reveal a critical disparity in dialectal competence: while models perform well on French Metropolitan, 65.77% of them perform significantly worse on Quebec idioms, with only 9.0% favoring the regional dialect.These results confirm that our benchmarks are a reliable tool for quantifying the dialect gap and that prestige-language proficiency does not guarantee regional dialect understanding.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".