Study of the affinities and differences in the lexical characteristics of French spoken in North America (Quebec, Acadia, Louisiana)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le français étant parlé sur les cinq continents, il n'a pas toujours le même visage et les mêmes traits dans tout l'espace francophone.L'Amérique du nord est l ' une des aires linguistiques de la francophonie présentant des intérêts particuliers pour les linguistes qui cherchent à étudier les régionalismes et les particularités lexicales mettant en valeur les diversités culturelle et linguistique.Nous étudions dans cet article les particularités lexicales des français parlés au Québec, en Acadie et en Louisiane afin de trouver les affinités et les divergences entre ces parlers.Après avoir dépouillé les lexicographies concernant ces zones; nous avons dressé une typologie des particularités lexicales marquant ces parlers que nous catégorisons à deux niveaux lexical et sémantique.Ainsi nous comprenons que malgré le rapprochement entre ces parlers faisant partie de la francophonie d'Amérique, ils divergent sur le plan lexical en plus des aspects phonétique et morphosyntaxique.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".