MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787721960 · doi:10.1177/0731121417753371

Spousal Characteristics and Language Use at Home: Immigrants and Their Descendants in Canada

2018· article· en· W2787721960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rennie Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Perspectives · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogamyImmigrationEthnic groupFirst languageSociologyContext (archaeology)Gender studiesPoliticsSocial psychologyDemographic economicsPsychologyLinguisticsPolitical scienceGeographyLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether immigrants and their descendants maintain or lose the mother tongue is central to debates about national and ethnic identities and immigrant integration. This is true in Canada, where language is a defining characteristic of the social and political landscape and large-scale migration has contributed to the country’s linguistic diversity. Whereas theories of linguistic assimilation predict mother-tongue loss in a few generations, interracial, interethnic, or cross-generational marriages may slow this process. This study examines whether official language(s) use at home is associated with spousal characteristics and how this association varies by generation and ethnic ancestry. Spousal characteristics and language use are positively associated, net of ethnic and religious context, parental characteristics, and individual characteristics. The movement toward official language(s) use only at home may be accelerated by spouses with the same first language or educated spouses, but this process can be delayed for individuals in foreign-born and endogamous marriages.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociological PerspectivesSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207