Unis par la langue? Les opinions et les valeurs des Franco-Québécois et des Franco-Ontariens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Canada est souvent analysé sous l’optique de son clivage linguistique. Certes, la distinction entre les francophones et les anglophones représente un facteur incontournable du paysage politique canadien. Toutefois, ce constat présuppose une certaine cohésion parmi chacun des deux groupes. Or, il est évident que des contrastes attitudinaux existent chez les francophones. Dans le but de mieux cerner les similitudes et les divergences politiques des francophones au Canada, la présente étude compare les valeurs et les attitudes politiques des Franco-Québécois et des Franco-Ontariens. L’analyse repose sur un sondage mené auprès de francophones au Québec et en Ontario. Cette comparaison nous permet de mieux déterminer le degré de distinction politique des Franco-Québécois. Les résultats témoignent des similarités et des divergences entre les deux groupes. Les analyses suggèrent également que les Franco-Québécois ne se distinguent pas davantage des Anglo-Ontariens que des Franco-Ontariens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".