MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3167938884 · doi:10.7202/1078476ar

Being Small and Outnumbered: Service and Sociocultural Exclusion Among Older Linguistic Minorities in Finland

2021· article· fr· W3167938884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fredrica Nyqvist, Siv Björklund, Marina Lindell, Mikael Nygård

Bibliographic record

VenueMinorités linguistiques et société · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial exclusionMinority languageSociocultural evolutionLinguisticsLanguage barrierInclusion (mineral)Inclusion–exclusion principleSociologyPsychologyLanguage shiftPolitical scienceGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study aims to analyze the social exclusion of older Swedish and Finnish speakers living as linguistic minorities in bilingual municipalities in Finland, where municipal authorities are required to offer services in both languages. Data was taken from the 2016 Language Barometer Survey, measuring the quality of language services in bilingual municipalities (n=33). For the purposes of our study, we focused on 2,030 people between the ages of 60 and 84. We included four different language groups, unilingual Swedish and Finnish speakers and Finnish-Swedish bilinguals and examined two social exclusion domains: service and sociocultural exclusion. The results showed that living as a regional minority poses a greater challenge when it comes to social inclusion for the unilingual and bilingual Swedish minority, as opposed to the Finnish-speaking minority. We conclude that linguistic rights seem to be achieved in the most egalitarian way in bilingual municipalities where Swedish is the majority language.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinorités linguistiques et sociétéSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207