Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable attention has been devoted to theorizing the rights of minority cultures in recent years. Political theorists have developed accounts of the normative questions raised by issues of race, immigration, nationalism, indigenous peoples and religion. After a period of neglect, theorists are now starting to turn their attention to the normative issues posed by another form of diversity: linguistic diversity. The past few years have seen the publication of a number of accounts of the implications of normative principles of equality, autonomy and democracy for language policy. Although normative theorizing about language rights is still in its infancy, it is becoming possible to make out the main positions. The debate over language rights typically pits “nation-builders,” who emphasize the goods that can be realized by diffusing a single language and culture throughout the state, against “language maintainers,” who stress the value of preserving vulnerable languages and language communities. The nation-builders are, at best, indifferent to minority language rights, and often argue against them on the grounds that they discourage state-wide linguistic convergence. They may allow a “norm-and-accommodation” regime of language rights that permits certain transitional accommodations for people with limited proficiency in the normal state or “national” language. But they typically oppose “official” language rights – that is, rights that minority-language speakers might enjoy to the public use of their language (e.g. in the delivery of public services, in the public schools, etc.) even when they are perfectly fluent in the majority language that would otherwise be used in public settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".