What Form of Language Education Do Immigrant Parents Want? An Investigation into the Educational Desires of Members of Ontario’s Arab Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the language education desires\n[whether they be English as a second language (ESL), French as a second\nlanguage (FSL), and/or heritage language classes] and needs of one segment\nof Ontario�s ESL population, Arabic speakers, and to determine if those desires\nvary from the current language education offerings in Ontario�s elementary\nschools. The findings in this study, provided by data collected from document\nanalysis and an online questionnaire, suggest that members of Ontario�s Arab\ncommunity strongly value the learning of multiple languages. Also, although\nall participants agree that learning French is important; most agree that learning\nEnglish is more important. Furthermore, in addition to supporting Ontario�s\nbilingual language education program, members of Ontario�s Arab community\nalso desire heritage language classes. The majority of participants in this study\nwould like their children to have access to Arabic at school to maintain their\nL1 and this desire is further supported by the almost 87% who agree that their\nchildren�s use of Arabic is decreasing
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".