A Comparative Study of the Intent of Mandarin Bilingual Programs: A critical discourse analysis of public school programs in Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a paper to give voice to oppressed communities such as linguistic minorities, about the implications of heritage language maintenance amidst official languages’ supremacy. Ethnic communities historically encountered various and harsh marginalization from the dominant culture, and the multicultural policy of the Canadian government does not effectively recognize a space for such languages to be heard in the public sphere. This paper intends to explore Mandarin Bilingual Programs implemented in numerous school districts around British Columbia (BC) such as Vancouver, Burnaby and Coquitlam School Districts of British Columbia (School District 39, 41 and 43 official websites), and in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario. This paper will analyze the wording, phrases, and graphics from the official information on the Programs online and in news media. It may shed light on the intent and intended learners of linguistic programs among these programs. One may question whether or not the establishment of bilingual programs has anything to do with governmental assistance, enhancement, or support for ethnicity in maintaining heritage languages in a contemporary and multicultural society such as British Columbia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".