Indigenous Language Revitalization and Applied Linguistics: Conceptualizing an Ethical Space of Engagement Between Academic Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This conceptual paper examines the relationship between two academic areas: applied linguistics and Indigenous language revitalization. While the two domains have shared interests, they tend to operate separately. This paper examines: 1) possible reasons for this separateness; 2) mutually beneficial reasons to be in closer conversation and 3) changes necessary for the creation of an ethical space of engagement (Ermine, 2007) between these academic areas. We write from distinct positions: Belinda, a nēhiyaw woman working in Indigenous language resurgence and Andrea, a white settler woman working in language issues related to settler-colonialism. Drawing from our joint and individual experiences, we explore how these research fields can complement each other as well as intersect to create richer interdisciplinary knowledge.
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 | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.139 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".