Bibliographic record
Abstract
The final chapter goes beyond the set time frame of 1940-98 and into the present. Analyzing news coverage since the postwar period, in this chapter we identify a recurring Canadian news coverage on Canadian English, presenting the concept of "Canadian English" as either new or weird. In the light of the evidence presented throughout the book, the readers are in the position to decide for themselves whether there is a Canadian English. Canadian intellectuals are shown as often taking a rather negative stance, treating expressions of national identity as more or less akin to national jingoism, which is surprising given their generally international orientation. Attitude data are used to show that a "Canadian way of speaking" is firmly entrenched in the minds of today's Canadian residents, with 80 per cent of Canadians across all age groups positively confirming the concept. This is a radical change from only a generation or two ago, when especially younger Canadians were often sceptical. News coverage has since also seen a shift, being today exclusively positive. Such data should encourage educators to teach about Canadian English expressly, starting in elementary school. Using examples from www.dchp.ca/dchp2 , it is shown that much remains to be explored about Canadian English.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.008 |
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".