MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209863007 · doi:10.4000/books.pulm.9040

Diaspora and Sociolinguistic space: the Jamaican Community in Toronto

2014· book-chapter· en· W3209863007 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lars Hinrichs

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses universitaires de la Méditerranée eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic Variation and Morphology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiasporaSociologySociolinguisticsSpace (punctuation)Variation (astronomy)LinguisticsSocial spaceMedia studiesGenealogyGeographyGender studiesHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diasporic settings confront scholars with mixes among cultures, dialects, and languages. Sociolinguists must describe the specific forms of that mix, then explain it by considering the social dynamics that produce it. This task presents above all a methodological challenge. Most scholars of culture and society agree that diasporic mixing between dialects and languages will become drastically more frequent in the nascent 21st century, and will come to dominate urban sociolinguistic space in many places. We have to ask: what methods are best suited to study the social meanings and structural changes of linguistic forms under conditions of ’super-diversity’ (Blommaert 2010; Vertovec 2007)? And how can we model community-level mixing while adequately accounting for the vast amount of observed idiolectal variation? In work on the Jamaican diaspora, I have conducted video-observations of Reggae and Rap artists of Jamaican heritage in Toronto. This paper presents an example of a frequency-based analysis of vocalic variation and discourse analyses of selected transcripts. Bridging the divide between quantitative and qualitative methodologies in sociolinguistics I employ Bourdieu’s (1982) notion of the symbolic capital of linguistic forms to explain the observable structural features of the diasporic dialect mix that occurs in the Jamaican Canadian community.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses universitaires de la Méditerranée eBooksSame topicLinguistic Variation and MorphologyFrench-language works237,207