Representations of language and identity : focus on Canadian English lexis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article continues the "Representations of Language and Identity among English-speaking Canadians" series of studies based on the data provided by the sociolinguistic sample survey of the same name. Initiated by the author in the year 2000, it illustrates the linguistic habits of English-speaking inhabitants of urban Ontario as well as their subjective evaluation of these habits. Whereas the first article evidenced a lack of concordance between Canadians' spelling choices (51% American - according to the collected data) and what they think their spelling is like (namely, 55% British), this article brings forth a more realistic perspective of the population with regard to vocabulary. Just as the initial hypotheses had foreseen, Canadians' lexical choices are divided between (1) the British lexical item; (2) the North American lexical item (US and Canada); and (3) the typically Canadian lexical item. Apartfrom that (4), New Canadians tend to preserve, at least for some time after their arrival, culture-specific elements that influence their lexical choices. However, their subjective self-reflexive statements reveal the sense of belonging to a common North American culture, followed by an increasing sense ofnational identity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".