Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the relationships between the integration experiences of adolescent newcomers in one francophone secondary school in Montreal and the current policies and programs related to educational integration. The research draws on observations and participants' descriptions and insights to address three principal questions: How is integration experienced by adolescent newcomers in a francophone school in Montreal? How do these students' experiences inform our understanding of the relationships among host (second) language learning/teaching, integration, and identity construction? What are the implications of these newcomer students' integration experiences for educational theories, policies and programs/practices that target such newcomers? These questions emerge from a consideration of theories of identity construction current in a variety of disciplines. The study offers an overview of Quebec's past and present immigration and integration policies and programs. It considers those policies in light of identity theory and, more specifically, focuses on the relationships between language learning, integration, and identity in the experience of adolescent immigrants within a francophone secondary school in Montreal. Based on interviews and participant observation conducted over 15 months, the study describes the ways in which the participants' integration and identity are shaped by school discourses and the standardizing imperative of most North American educational institutions. Findings suggest that the participants resist the school's discourses in order to assert themselves dialogically and relocate their sense of identity in their host society. However, the dialogic relationships that the students are able to establish with and within the school discourses are imbalanced, leaving several students to feel dislocated both physically and psychically throughout the study. The study indicates that a distributed notion of the Self might improve theory, policy, and pedagogy related to newcomer integration. Finally, specific suggestions are made for building on current educational-integration research and practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".