Bibliographic record
Abstract
Karate-do is one of many budo, or martial ways, that originated during the Kamakura Shogunate of Japan. The original dojos (training halls), used the Japanese language to indoctrinate karate students into the moral code of the dojo community. Over the last century karate has spread across the world, and other languages have been combined with Japanese to teach the art and sport. In this article, the discursive practice of combining English and Japanese in Canadian dojos is called Karate-Talk. Using identity frameworks from linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics, I illustrate and interpret how Karate-Talk teaches students the moral and ethical codes that are embedded in karate training, and in doing so helps students develop their black belt identity. Dojos want their students to develop black belt identities because it helps to pass on the traditions of karate-do and contributes to the preservation and continuation of the art form. This article describes Karate-Talk in a socio-historic context, and establishes the ways it is used to create black belt identities in karate students through the use of a case study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.060 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".