Teachers’ in-class use of nominal address forms with their students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines variation in the address forms teachers use in class with their students. It draws on a corpus collected in French-medium secondary schools in Ontario, Canada. The study provides a taxonomy of the nominal address forms used, along with frequency counts and dispersion rates. This includes forms used to address: i) the entire class (e.g., tout le monde ‘everyone’, guys, and les élèves ‘students’); ii) a group of students (e.g., ceux-celles/les gens, etc. + qui ‘those/the people, etc. + who’, les filles ‘girls’, and les gars ‘boys’); and iii) individual students (e.g., first names, first and last names, Monsieur ‘Sir’, Madame ‘Ma’am’, Mademoiselle ‘Miss’, ma belle ‘my dear’, mon grand ‘big guy’). The study examines the discursive functions associated with these address forms (e.g., positive relational functions like ‘praising’ and ‘encouraging’ are associated with terms of affection). The study concludes by highlighting the contribution its findings make to Francols’ (2010) calls for further research on the topic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".