MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Globalization and Language Learning in Rural Japan: The Role of English in the Local Linguistic Ecology

2009· article· en· W1511669331 on OpenAlexaff
Ryūko Kubota, Sandra McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueTESOL Quarterly · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinguistic landscapeSociologyContext (archaeology)PortugueseLingua francaEthnographyGlobalizationChinaLinguisticsPedagogyGeographyAnthropologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on a study of current language use in a rural community in Japan, we question to what extent English actually does serve today as a lingua franca in multilingual, internationally diverse communities. Specifically, we report on a critical ethnography of a small Japanese community with a growing number of non—English‐speaking immigrants, largely from Brazil but also from China, Peru, Korea, and Thailand. We investigate how people in the community view and engage in local linguistic diversity and how this is related to their subjectivities and to their experiences in learning and using English. We analyzed the public report of a community survey on diversity conducted by the city and interviewed three Japanese volunteer leaders who are teachers and learners of English and two Japanese who study Portuguese in order to support the local Brazilian migrant workers. Based on our findings, we highlight four emergent themes that provide insights into the significance of learning English in a linguistically diverse context. We also discuss the pedagogical implications of the local linguistic ecology for the teaching and learning of English.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations141
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESOL QuarterlySame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207