MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Minority Languages, Education, and the Constitution

2017· book-chapter· en· W2886725518 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda Cardinal, Pierre Foucher

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinority languageConstitutionalismLinguistic rightsPolitical scienceFederalismCharterConstitutionMinority rightsLanguage policyContext (archaeology)Public administrationLawFundamental rightsHuman rightsSociologyRight to propertyPedagogyLinguisticsGeographyDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The chapter discusses minority education language rights in Canada. It argues that there are institutional constraints to the development of those rights, foremost amongst them constitutionalism and federalism. Minority education language rights concern the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minorities in the rest of the country. First, the chapter reviews minority education and language debates in Canada since 1867. Second, it explains how in the 1960s, English and French became the official languages of the Canadian government and how provinces started to address the schooling needs of their official language minority. Third, the chapter discusses the recognition of minority education language rights in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. It takes a positive lens in discussing minority language education rights but concludes that constitutionalism and federalism remain important factors in understanding the development and future of minority education language rights in the Canadian context.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→