Comment et l’expression de la quantité en français québécois de tous les jours. Je me demande comment ça coûte, comment il y a de neige, ça fait comment de temps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the quantitative use of COMMENT ‘how’ (comment-Q ‘how much’) in Quebec French, used in a sentence such as j’ai hâte de voir comment ça va coûter ‘I can’t wait to see how much it will cost’. In this type of context, comment-Q commutes with the quantitative COMBIEN (combien-Q ‘how much’). The study is based on data taken from the Corpus de français parlé au Québec (CFPQ), a database of casual conversations recorded on audiovisual support between 2006 and 2019 in various regions of Quebec. The study has four objectives. The aim is 1) to determine the frequency of comment-Q within the set of meanings expressed by the marker COMMENT in synchrony, 2) to determine whether comment-Q and combien-Q are exact synonyms, 3) to identify the factors likely to have concurred in the emergence of comment-Q in the variety of French being studied, 4) to position comment-Q in relation to other meanings expressed by COMMENT, in particular those referring to intensity and manner.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".