Implications of English-Plus, or English-French-Plus ideologies for Indigenous language revitalization programs in schools.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of this paper presentation is language ideologies and their impact on Indigenous languages in the Canadian context. In particular, the area of interest is Nunavut, and their attempts to institute fully bilingual (English or French and Inuktitut) in a Canadian context which privileges English or French constitutionally over other minority languages. This privileged position of the two founding languages of the Canadian State will be discussed as a problematic reality which demotes Indigenous language speakers and learners to a secondary, or even tertiary position within the country and, by considering the demographic makeup of the teaching profession in Nunavut which comes predominantly from the provinces. Additional analysis will consider the intersection of aspirational pieces of Indigenous language protections in Nunavut, and the role that education plays in this discourse. This will be extended to Nunavut as it is a public government which conforms to all of the constraints which come from this relationship to Canada.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".