MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978166486 · doi:10.1017/s0142716407070282

The future of Inuktitut in the face of majority languages: Bilingualism or language shift?

2007· article· en· W1978166486 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shanley Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Psycholinguistics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismIndigenousPsychologyFace (sociological concept)Linguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inuktitut, the Eskimo language spoken in Eastern Canada, is one of the few Canadian indigenous languages with a strong chance of long-term survival because over 90% of Inuit children still learn Inuktitut from birth. In this paper I review existing literature on bilingual Inuit children to explore the prospects for the survival of Inuktitut given the increase in the use of English in these regions. Studies on code mixing and subject realization among simultaneous bilingual children ages 2–4 years show a strong foundation in Inuktitut, regardless of extensive exposure to English in the home. However, three studies of older Inuit children exposed to English through school reveal some stagnation in children's Inuktitut and increasing use of English with age, even in nonschool contexts. I conclude that current choices about language use at the personal, school, and societal levels will determine whether Inuit are able to reach and maintain stable bilingualism, or whether Inuktitut will decline significantly in favor of majority languages.

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)0.001
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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations92
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied PsycholinguisticsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207