Recognition of Langue des Signes Québécoise in Eastern Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution addresses language policy and planning (LPP) for sign languages (SL) in Canada, focusing on the situation of Langue des signes québécoise (LSQ) in the east, particularly in Quebec and Ontario. Drawing on papers from the deaf press, government and scientific reports, legislation, experiments, surveys, social services, and official educational programs, we present an overview of the distribution of SLs across Canada, which has two legitimate SLs: American Sign Language (ASL) and LSQ. This characterization includes a description of educational policies and focuses on the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. We also describe the actions undertaken by Canadian Deaf communities and their arguments in support of the official recognition of SL, with an emphasis on education. We provide a detailed account of what has been achieved in terms of the government's response to these efforts (e.g., implementation of an LSQ-French bilingual program in Ottawa and Montreal deaf schools). Finally, we offer a critical look at SL policies and discuss issues surrounding the (non)recognition of SL in deaf education.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it