MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140511143 · doi:10.7202/017710ar

Confronting the Demise of a Mother Tongue: The Feasibility of Implementing Language Immersion Programs to Reinvigorate the Taiwanese Language

2008· article· en· W2140511143 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Johan Gijsen, Yuchang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’Université de Moncton · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandarin ChineseFirst languageNeuroscience of multilingualismLanguage policyDominance (genetics)PsychologyMultilingualismLinguisticsSociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Taiwan, where Mandarin is the official language, the survival of Taiwanese, the mother tongue of sixty percent of the island’s inhabitants, is threatened. In this article, the authors discuss data from previous and ongoing research on the role of language and the significance of language loss in the quest for a “Taiwanese identity.” Research shows that the dominance of Mandarin over Taiwanese plus the growing support for English in Taiwan are likely indications that current Mandarin/Taiwanese bilingualism is being replaced by Mandarin/English bilingualism. Canadian, Finnish, Basque and Catalonian models of language immersion programs will be proposed as an alternative to Taiwan’s current language policy. The authors argue that such models, when applied to a significant degree in Taiwan’s primary education system, will contribute to strengthening Taiwanese identity, to defending the right of youngsters to receive their education in their Taiwanese mother tongue, and to creating more effective English language training.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’Université de MonctonSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207