MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942111428

캐나다 이중언어정책의 이상과 현실

2015· article· ko· W1942111428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
윤태진

Bibliographic record

Venue언어학 연구 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismContext (archaeology)Political scienceImmigrationBilingual educationPedagogySociologyPublic relationsEconomic growthLinguisticsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper mainly aimed to explore how bilingualism has been implemented and practiced in the current Canadian society, with a special focus on the issue faced by both francophones and anglophones in Quebec. The superficial aspects of bilingualism were tested against current events reported in news media. The paper also examined the status of French in Quebec from the historical, economical and educational context. This paper concluded that while English thrives in the rest of Canada, gaining new speakers of other languages every year, it has been in retreat in Quebec during the last three decades. This paper could possibly contribute to deepening our understanding on the realities of the bilingualism in Canada and its seemingly mixed-up language policies across Canada. At the end of this study, some implications about language education policies applicable to Korea were discussed in depth. Since Korea is welcoming a number of immigrants with diverse language backgrounds, the implications in this study could possibly contribute to facilitating decision-makers of language education policies in Korea to establish more appropriate bilingual education programs in Korea.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue언어학 연구Same topicEducational Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207