MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969342042 · doi:10.1109/iseima.2006.344990

The Role of the School in the Maintenance of French Language Minority Identity in English Canada

2006· article· en· W1969342042 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diane Gérin‐Lajoie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyCharterContext (archaeology)Cultural reproductionReproductionFrenchSociologyIdentity (music)InstitutionOrder (exchange)Gender studiesPedagogyPolitical scienceLinguisticsSocial scienceLawAnthropologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a sociological analysis of the role played by the school in Francophone communities located outside of the province of Quebec, in Canada. Although education in French has always been tolerated in the country, it is only in 1982 that access to education in the minority language became a legal right, as specified in Article 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The intent of my paper is to examine the role that teachers are expected to play as agents of linguistic and cultural reproduction in this minority context and, most importantly, how the teachers comprehend this role. The paper will present results obtained from a recently completed 3-year ethnographic study that I have conducted with 9 teachers, in order to examine their teaching experience the study was supported by the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada (2001-2004). The analysis will reveal a tension between their role as agents of knowledge transmission and agents of linguistic and cultural reproduction.

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)0.003
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207