MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031983324 · doi:10.1080/15348458.2020.1753195

Meaning-Making Process of Ethnicity: A Case of Japanese Mixed Heritage Youth

2020· article· en· W3031983324 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Language Identity & Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeritage languageAcknowledgementEthnic groupMeaning (existential)SociologyCultural heritageGender studiesLinguisticsAnthropologyPsychologyHistoryPedagogyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to provide a better understanding of Japanese Mixed Heritage Youth’s (JMHY) relationship to heritage language and senses of ethnicity, by analyzing their daily language use as provided by 14 JMHY. All (with two exceptions) do not use Japanese at home, and some have enrolled in Japanese as a second language class at a university. The article suggests that the participants’ use of the term “half Japanese” to describe their ethnicity reveals their complex relationship with their Japanese heritage. Despite the ways JMHY differentiate themselves from Japanese people, the term indicates their recognition of a connection to Japanese heritage and the acknowledgement of the coexistence of the other half of their heritage at the same time. Engaging in making meaning of their ethnicity, JMHY show a tendency to return to roots and to rely on traditions, but it is not necessarily a one-way direction.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.401 · 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