L'utilisation et le jugement des dictionnaires de français par des étudiants québécois et acadiens
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study concerns the usage and the judgment of French dictionaries by students from Quebec and New Brunswick. It enables to understand which dictionaries are the most liked and bought based on their form and content. The analysis is done on three different dimensions: diatopic, gender and study level. The purpose is to determine which dictionaries are the most used and possessed, and if they equal to the one they judge as the best in content and form. The results showed different important aspects of the linguistic situation and the knowledge of European and Canadian dictionaries. In the first place, the sense of identity of these students has been highly emphasized. In the second place, there is an apparent difference in treatment of the sociolects by the students of Quebec and New Brunswick. In the third place, the results showed an important dissimilarity between the dictionaries that are the most known and possessed and the one judged as the best with respect to their form and content.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it