ЯЗЫКОВЫЕ ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНЫЕ РЕЖИМЫ В ЭТНИЧЕСКИХ ФЕДЕРАЦИЯХ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The struggle for a mother tongue as a medium is caused by the problem of survival of an ethnic group that perceives its language situation as discriminated. It politicizes language and refers us to the research problem of the balance between ethnic minority claims to the autonomy and territorial integrity of a state. In the case of an ethnic federation, the solution of this problem is to redesign the territorial and administrative structure by the separation of a new sub-federal state, transformation of internal boundaries or changing the capacity and scope of preferences for selected regions that get the status of an ethnic territorial autonomy. More often than not, the set of these measures includes language preferential policy. The institutionalized preferential language policy sets language territorial regimes various in their strength. The idea of classifying them into three types is verified by the example of eight ethnic territorial autonomies in five ethnic federations (Wallonia and Flanders in Belgium, Quebec in Canada, the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in India, and Jura in Switzerland DOI: 10.17072/2218-1067-2016-4-94-115
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".