Frenching it up: The English future temporal reference system in a French-Canadian dominant town
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
Abstract This study examines the future temporal reference (FTR) system among Francophones and Anglophones speaking English in Kapuskasing, Ontario. Previous studies have shown that in Laurentian French, the go future is the preferred variant, and the strongest determinant of variant choice is polarity: negatives strongly favor the inflected future. In Canadian English, the go future has no polarity effect and there is robust variation with will , highlighting a key contrast in the underlying constraints between the French and English FTR systems. The results show that while older Anglophones pattern in tandem with known studies of English, Francophones, as well as young Anglophones, exhibit the polarity contrast of the French system, even though they are speaking English. We suggest that these results may stem from social alignment between Francophones and Anglophones driven by increasing linguistic and social symmetry in the community, as well as increasing positive affect toward French in Kapuskasing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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