Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linguistic rights mean using and learning languages personally, publicly, and freely. And it means the right to exchange with them. Minority declared the right not to be discriminated based on languages in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After this, problems for linguistic minorities were raised in the two declarations. They are legally non-binding, but they are meaningful in that the problems about languages were raised. And they formed the foundation of the Universal Declaration of linguistic rights. Canada implemented pioneering multicultural policies. It evaluated multiculture with social resources and implemented active policies and heritage language education. However, it currently suspended heritage language education because dissent of it was strong in it. It is difficult to keep minorities’ linguistic rights. Discussion on linguistic rights has not begun in Korea. Heritage language education has been implemented focusing on the Korean language. it has been a little bit done in the Japanese language. Korea has little interest in heritage language education of various languages. The Linguistic rights Society was established in Japan in 1998 and discussion on linguistic rights has been actively done. Heritage language education is done focusing on the Japanese language, but in some areas, heritage language education of Chinese, Spanish, Korean, etc. Heritage language education is good to be implemented in the public education system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.006 |
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 teacher head, 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".