Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME One measure of ethnic identity for any non-recent immigrant group is retention of its original language (which tends to be given up in favour of the new language that post-immigration generations are immersed in). The main Jewish languages are Yiddish (the East European folk tongue) and Hebrew (the classical-Biblical language, still used in all formal synagogue activities and in Israel). We assume that the use of Hebrew or Yiddish among Canadian Jews is a gross or approximate measure of their identity retention in general, despite the fact that a vigorous Jewish life is being maintained in using English predominantly. This study reviews Canadian census language data through 1996 to ascertain number, age group, and urban locations of today's Yiddish and Hebrew (Ivrit) speakers, and summarizes the comparative strengths of these tongues in as we enter the new century. Discussion about education, immigration, and other variables attempts to explain the differences shown. Une mesure de l'identite ethnique de n'importe quel groupe d'immigrants de longue date est le maintien en usage de sa langue d'origine (laquelle tend a se perdre en faveur du nouveau langage dans lequel les generations subsequentes se trouvent immergees). Les principales langues juives sont le yiddish (La langue populaire de l'Europe de l'Est) et l'hebreu (langue biblique classique, toujours utilisee dans les ceremonies officielles des synagogues ainsi qu'en Israel). Nous considerons que l'emploi de l'hebreu ou du yiddish par les Juifs du est une mesure brute ou approximative du maintien de leur identite en general. en depit du fait qu'une vie juive fort active qui utilise sutout l'anglais, existe au Canada. Cette etude analyse les resultats du recensement des langues utilisees jusqu'en 1996, afin de determiner le nombre, le groupe d'age et la localisation urbaine des utilisateurs des langues yiddish et hebraique (Ivrit) d'aujourd' hui et resume l'importance comparative de ces parlers au en ce nouveau millenaire. Des discussions au sujet de l'education de l'immigration et autres variables tentent d'expliquer les differences observees The study of Jewish-language populations has been a scholarly pursuit among those examining ethnic survival in general and Jewish continuity in particular, for many years. This author has, in previous work, looked at data from the Canadian censuses of 1971, 1981 and 1986 to review the size of the populations reporting that they are of Yiddish mother tongue versus of Yiddish home language, (1) a discussion on the demographic vitality of the Yiddish language in which we continue herein. Data Source and Methodology The Canadian census, in 1991 and 1996, had three separate questions to study languages other than English and French: 1) Mother tongue, which means the first language that a person learned in childhood; 2) Home language, that is the tongue which is most commonly spoken in the family setting; 3) Any language that the census respondent knows well enough to carry on a conversation in. (2) This makes it possible to assess the demographic strength of any language reported in the Canadian census, since languages that have small populations, or that have a very low proportion of those who know the language using it at home and thereby passing it on to the next generation, are in a weak position from the standpoint of that language's future in Canada. On the other hand, where those who are able to converse in a particular language are numerous; where those people are concentrated in particular localities rather than diffused throughout the country; where a high percentage of those who know a language are actually using it at home and thereby teaching it to their children, that language is in a stronger position to survive :in Canada into the future. (3) The motives or reasons for abandoning Yiddish, in Europe as well as the New World, are discussed by Harshav. …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".