MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525800687 · doi:10.18806/tesl.v29i0.1109

A Critical Review of the Canadian Empirical Literature: Documenting Generation 1.5’s K-16 Trajectories

2012· review· en· W1525800687 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bruce Garnett

Bibliographic record

VenueTESL Canada Journal · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsThinkpath Engineering Services (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationDiversity (politics)Socioeconomic statusEmpirical researchPopulationSociologyLinguistic diversityDemographic economicsPsychologyMathematics educationGeographyLinguisticsDemographyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little empirical research has ever systematically documented the academic trajectories of Generation 1.5 in Canadian schools. Indeed, this label has not even been used to define the population of interest in the studies reviewed here. Nonetheless, some earlier work, along with more current studies made possible by recent availability of data, has created a small blossoming of relevant literature that might now be critically synthesized. Therefore, this report synthesizes 17 available largescale Canadian empirical studies that examine the outcomes and trajectories of immigrant youth in Canadian K-12 schools and university. Despite differences in variables across the studies, this article finds that school outcomes vary predictably among ethnocultural groups and by English-language proficiency. It also finds that the role of socioeconomic status in explaining these differences is not yet clear. It appears that some immigrant groups are underserved and that teachers may be underprepared for classrooms of linguistic and ethnocultural diversity. Policy implications and further research directions are discussed.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTESL Canada JournalSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207