Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has played a leadership role in the domain of second language instruction. Since the inception of French immersion programs, researchers and educators have looked to Canada as a model for teaching French as a second language. Focusing on French as a second language (FSL) in British Columbia (BC), the author explores what is unique about FSL in British Columbia and what is to be revisited in order to reorganize and reorient language teaching discourse, which has some implications for the EFL language teaching discourse in Japan. Federal and Provincial Scope Canada’s Official Language Historically, some consider that the Canadian Confederation in 1867 was the inception of a policy of bilingualism in Canada (Canadian encyclopedia, n.d.). Experiencing continual political turmoil, especially in the 1960s in terms of bilingualism, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism served to help Canadian Parliament to adopt the first Official Languages Act in 1969 (Raptis & Fleming, 2004). “This Act recognized English and French as the official languages of all federal institutions in Canada” (Department of Canadian Heritage, 2008, para 7). The Official Language Act grants legitimate status to the two languages in Parliament, in the courts and in the federal administration. Most recently, in 1982, “the Constitution Act was proclaimed, further guaranteeing the status and use of the official languages of Canada in federal institutions” (Department of Canadian Heritage, 2008). Advancement of bilingualism in Canada The striking advancement of bilingualism in Canada is demonstrated when the initial phase
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".