Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Language rights in Canada have a long and tumultuous history. The published accounts focus on the English- and French-language communities. The extensive language rights scheme entrenched in sections 16 to 20 and 23 of the Charter intends to promote equality between the English and French languages, what may be called duality. Linguistic duality is also found in Canada's Official Languages Act. One of the express purposes of the Official Languages Act is to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities as well as to advance the equality status and use of the English and French languages within Canadian society. Linguistic duality, and more specifically achieving equality of these two language communities, may appear to be the sole focus of language rights and policy in Canada, but that is inaccurate. Language rights and policy in Canada are more complex. Canada's language policy provides asymmetric protection to those French and English language communities that live as minorities in the provinces. This makes for considerable complexity as these communities differ remarkably one from another. The concept of community itself is complex and contestable in Canada. Further, Canada's language policy also extends to allophone communities and to certain Aboriginal language communities. This adds further layers of complexity, and potential for conflict. Thus, a comprehensive examination of language rights in Canada also requires a consideration of allophone and Aboriginal language communities. This paper explores the theoretical frameworks underlying language policy in Canada. It describes the principal theoretical frameworks that have been proposed by various scholars and examines how these have been implemented in working mechanisms to protect minority language communities in Canada. In Part II, I review the various theoretical justifications or normative frameworks that justify protection of minority language rights generally. In Part III, I describe different models and mechanisms that states may employ to protect minority language rights. In Part IV, I show why there is no singly theory of language rights in Canada. I explain how Canada's language policy is underpinned by many justifications which have evolved over time, under different policy imperatives, since Confederation. Central to this explanation is how the treatment of French minority-language communities evolved from nation building to the protection of linguistic human rights and the preservation of linguistic diversity. I endeavour to show that the principle objective is not simply linguistic security but linguistic survival. In Part V, I also briefly address Canada's language policy vis-a-vis non-official language minorities. This essay is not intended to be extensive. It is meant to examine the principal theories that have been advanced and to examine their practical application in Canadian context.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,027 | 0,035 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».