MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7102329783

Low-Resource Dialect Adaptation of Large Language Models: A French Dialect Case-Study

2025· article· W7102329783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)PrestigeBenchmark (surveying)Resource (disambiguation)Variation (astronomy)Language model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs), their strongest capabilities remain largely confined to a small number of high-resource languages for which there is abundant training data. Recently, continual pre-training (CPT) has emerged as a means to fine-tune these models to low-resource regional dialects. In this paper, we study the use of CPT for dialect learning under tight data and compute budgets. Using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) and compute-efficient continual pre-training, we adapt three LLMs to the Québec French dialect using a very small dataset and benchmark them on the COLE suite. Our experiments demonstrate an improvement on the minority dialect benchmarks with minimal regression on the prestige language benchmarks with around 1% of model parameters updated. Analysis of the results demonstrate that gains are highly contingent on corpus composition. These findings indicate that CPT with parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) can narrow the dialect gap by providing cost-effective and sustainable language resource creation, expanding high-quality LLM access to minority linguistic communities. To support reproducibility and broaden access, we release the first Québec French LLMs on Hugging Face.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207