Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolMultiples factores condicionan la transmision de una lengua en contextos bilingues, y dentro de ellos las actitudes linguisticas juegan un rol importante. Estas son definidas como las valoraciones de los hablantes hacia un fenomeno especifico, lengua, variedad o sociolecto. Este trabajo aborda el problema en Montreal, contexto multilingue y multidialectal, donde el espanol comparte uso con el frances y el ingles, lenguas mayoritarias, y donde distintas variedades del espanol entran en contacto. El objetivo del estudio es determinar, a traves del cuestionario, las actitudes de jovenes hispanohablantes (14-24 anos) frente al espanol y sus variedades dialectales. Los resultados muestran que: 1) los informantes reconocen la diversidad del espanol y se reconocen en su norma, 2) las normas de origen, la mexicanocentroamericana y el espanol peninsular gozan de prestigio entre los jovenes, 3) se reconoce cierta tendencia a la acomodacion linguistica en la primera generacion, 4) los jovenes se perfilan como transmisores de la lengua espanola y afirman valorarla positivamente, por lealtad y por la utilidad de la misma. EnglishThe linguistic attitudes of young hispanics in Montreal. Multiple factors influence language transmission in bilingual contexts, and among such factors linguistic attitudes emerge as a central one. Linguistic attitudes are defined as the valuation by speakers of specific phenomena, language, variety or sociolect. This research is situated in Montreal, a multilingual and multidialectal context in which Spanish is commonly spoken along French and English, the majority languages, and in which different varieties of Spanish are also in contact. The objective of this research is to determine, via a questionnaire, the attitudes of young Hispanic informants (14-24 years of age) toward Spanish and its dialectic varieties. Results show that: 1) the informants recognize the different varieties of Spanish and their norms, 2) the Mexican- Central American and peninsular Spanish norms enjoy status among informants, 3) there is a tendency toward linguistic accommodation in the first generation, and 4) the young informants become agents of transmission of Spanish language and value the language positively due to loyalty and to its usefulness.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".