MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994836838 · doi:10.3138/cmlr.68.2.190

Multiple Minorities or Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Plurilingual Learners? Re-envisioning Allophone Immigrant Children and Their Inclusion in French-Language Schools in Ontario

2012· article· en· W1994836838 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gail Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of International Science and Engineering
KeywordsImmigrationFrenchMinority languageMulticulturalismFraming (construction)Inclusion (mineral)Transformative learningSociologyMultilingualismLinguisticsPolitical sciencePedagogyGender studiesHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Four out of five immigrants to Canada speak a language other than English or French as a first language. Immigration is increasingly transforming francophone minority communities. Allophone children acquire minority status on multiple levels within French-language schools, where they can become both a linguistic minority and a cultural minority within an official francophone minority in Canada. This article examines how culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) allophones have been constructed historically through official language and multiculturalism policies in Canada and how this political framing limits language rights and schooling for allophone immigrant children. By examining recent language policies, this article argues that the ways in which policy makers, educators, and researchers conceptualize CLD children shape their integration into Canada. This article draws upon a case study of teachers’ practices with allophone learners in one French-language school to highlight the potential for transformative third-space practices to support CLD children in French-language schools.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantesSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207