MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314992342 · doi:10.1017/s0047404514000542

Discourses of minority francophone space: The emergent role of an Acadian cultural center

2014· article· en· W2314992342 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelle L. Keating

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage in Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchSpace (punctuation)SociologyPluralGender studiesLinguisticsLinguistic landscapeMedia studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent studies documenting minority linguistic space in urban settings have focused on cities' linguistic landscapes, and external signage is often taken to index linguistic practices within businesses, government offices, and other establishments. To shed light on linguistic practices in culturally significant spaces of this sort, it is helpful to consider social actors' discursive construction of the spaces themselves. This article describes discourses of minority francophone space elicited from members and associates of Moncton, New Brunswick'sCentre culturel Aberdeen. The data are analyzed according to Lefebvre's (1974/1991) conceived, perceived, and lived spaces and Heller & Labrie's (2004) modernizing and globalizing discourses. The present findings demonstrate that, while Aberdeen's conceived space is francophone, other languages are spoken in Aberdeen's perceived space. Participants also describe Aberdeen's lived space as bilingual, mediating between anglophones and francophones. These discourses, coupled with changes in the Centre's charter, suggest an emergent, plural conception of minority francophone space. (Francophone, minority, Canada, Acadian, discourse, social space)*

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.390 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage in SocietySame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207