MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7123343099 · doi:10.4000/15hme

L’impact des politiques linguistiques sur l’usage de l’écriture inclusive dans les articles publiés entre 2018 et 2021 dans Libération et dans La Presse

2025· article· W7123343099 on OpenAlex
Nikita Kamblé-Bagal, Anaïs Tatossian

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLinx · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Discourse analysisCritical discourse analysisSociolinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article compare l’usage de l’écriture inclusive dans les quotidiens Libération (France) et La Presse (Québec), en lien avec les politiques linguistiques de chaque pays. L’écriture inclusive, un ensemble de pratiques visant l’égalité de représentation des genres, est recommandée au Québec depuis 1979, alors qu’en France, il faut attendre 1998. L’étude vise à déterminer si une recommandation gouvernementale plus ancienne au Québec se traduit par un usage plus marqué de l’écriture inclusive par rapport à la France. L’analyse linguistique du corpus d’articles révèle toutefois que les phénomènes inclusifs sont plus présents dans Libération que dans La Presse, ce qui suggère que l’impact des politiques linguistiques demeure limité.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.352 · 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