Specification of Bilingual Scenario of Cross-Language Relationship and Its Implementation Problems (Based on the Examples of Canada, Belgium and Spain)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our current research is dedicated to the analysis of the most demonstrative scenarios of bilingual cross-language relationship andpeculiarities of their implementation within a single state, comparing the experience of such countries as Canada, Belgium andSpain. It has been examined that “type A” scenario implies of the ideas of the absence of “Great Tradition”, “type B” - the existenceof such “Great Tradition” and “type C” involves several “Great Traditions”, which remain in the relationship of competition. Besides, it has been estimated that diglossia models w ere distributed in former colonial states of Africa and India.Consideration of Canadian experience firstly showed the facts of the English-French bilingualism type; in addition to it, it has beenproved that all Federal Institutions had been transferred to bilingual background that was adopted legislatively by the Constitutionof Canada. The case of Belgium has occurred to be even more demonstrative, while this country has two components, which qualitativelydiffer “Belgian case” from the “Canadian”: a) more consequent background upon the ethnic model of communities’ identity(in Canada this model is exclusively “linguistic”, close to American “civil nation’s model”) and b) practical absence of the questionconsideration about “Belgian nation” (in Canadian case there exists such a public require, but it remains unsatisfied). Third country’s(Spain) investigation involves two principles which allow Spain to occupy the middle position between unitary, centralized, monolingual France and completely regionalized Belgium and pushes us to characterize the combination of these principles (“stateintegrity” and “regional demand”) as the “symbols of combination”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".