Le français québécois à la radio et à la télévision : étude phonétique et prosodique d'un corpus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À travers l’analyse d’un corpus d’émissions télévisées et radiophoniques, notre étude vise à examiner qualitativement les phénomènes phonétiques et prosodiques les plus présents dans le parlé médiatique franco-québécois. Certains des animateurs des émissions des chaînes publiques analysées ont une prononciation plus soignée, comprenant néanmoins des variantes typiques du français québécois, comme l’assibilation de /t, d/. En revanche, les locuteurs des chaînes privées ont une articulation moins contrôlée, caractérisée, par exemple, par des rhotacismes, des allophones de /a, ɑ/ et de nombreuses variantes des diphtongues orales. Il est également ressorti de l’analyse que le schéma accentuel du français québécois diffère de l’alternance de syllabe forte (F) et faible (f) de droite à gauche typique du français hexagonal. En particulier, certains schémas F f F sont restructurés en F F F si le contenu segmental le permet.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".