First language maintenance : the comparison of Chinese immigrant parents’ attitudes, the children’s language use patterns and their family environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploratory study was conducted to investigate Chinese parents' attitudes toward their children's first language maintenance. Interviews were conducted to collect data from a total of 30 parents who came from two distinct socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Fifteen parents sent their children to a university lab preschool (ULP group) and the other fifteen enrolled their children in a community-based day care (CDC group) in a Chinese-speaking neighborhood in Vancouver. The Family Environment Scale (FES) (Moos, 1974) was also used to collect information about the family social and emotional dynamics. All parents from both groups felt that it was important for their children to maintain their Chinese. However, it was found that parents and children from the CDC group used more Chinese than parents and children from the ULP group in most situations. Furthermore, the CDC parents were more concerned about the academic and literacy aspects of the language learning while the ULP parents were more personal and social oriented. These two groups of parents had similar scores in almost every sub-scale of the FES except for the sub-scales of active-recreational orientation, organization, and conflict. In the sub-scales of active-recreational orientation and organization, the ULP families had higher scores than the CDC families and there was a statistical significance between these two groups. The CDC group scored higher than the ULP group in the subscale of conflict and the scores of these two groups were statistically different. It was also found that there were positive correlations between some sub-scales scores in the FES and the language use patterns in the ULP group.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".