Autonomy as a remedy for language conflict
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
Group autonomy is often invoked as a tool to accommodate linguistic diversity and remedy potential conflicts in multilingual societies. This article analyses two different models of autonomy — namely the territorial and personal models — and assesses their ability to adequately respond to demands of linguistic recognition. Each model offers a mechanism for drawing internal boundaries within a given state in a way in which diverse linguistic groups can coexist. But while the territorial model draws internal boundaries in terms of concrete geographic lines, the personal model defines internal boundaries within a state in terms of more abstract lines of identity and group-membership. Analysis of the two models shows that although both models have strengths, they also have limitations. This creates a need to look for ways of integrating the two models such that they complement each other and overcome the limitations inherent in each. But the tension between the two models presents a challenge. As a solution, an asymmetrical integration, which gives precedence to territorial autonomy and supplements it with the personal model, is proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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