MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

English Name Use by East Asians in Canada: Linguistic Pragmatics or Cultural Identity?

2010· article· en· W2094535265 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNames · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupAppropriationLinguisticsPersonal identityIdentity (music)Chinese americansPsychologySociologySocial psychologySelf-conceptAnthropologyAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis article reports on a naming practice that is taking place among young Chinese and Koreans: the appropriation of the English personal name. Most young Chinese and Koreans seem to have an English personal name alongside their ethnic personal name. Yet, in sharp contrast young Japanese seldom seem to adopt an English personal name. This article explores the reasons behind these differences in English personal name adoption, and tests the assumption that Chinese and Koreans adopt English personal names because Westerners have difficulty pronouncing ethnic personal names. My conclusions are based on the results of a survey on English personal name use given to university students of Chinese, Japanese and Korean ethnicity living in Canada. The results suggest that the adoption of English personal names by young Chinese and Koreans is as much a cultural phenomenon as a pragmatic one.

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 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)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.310 · 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