Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilingual education is a simple label for a complex phenomenon (Cazden & Snow, 1990). Implemented all over the world, bilingual education (BE) has been a cutting-edge field of research and practice for the past fifty years. Linked to research on bilingualism (and multilingualism) in its interdisciplinary dimensions, the field of BE continues to grow exponentially in the twenty-first century as globalization, migration, and hyperconnectivity among people mean that we use language(s) differently. When most people in the world today use more than one named language to communicate in their everyday life, when so many children come to school with so many different language practices, and when the past fifty years of research have shown the various benefits of BE, it is surprising that BE is not offered more widely. Where do the obstacles lie? Who does BE serve and to what purpose? Which languages are favoured and which are not? How have all the different frameworks and types of programmes been researched? How has the field moved forward to propose more dynamic and transformative pedagogies of BE?
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.005 |
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".