MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4233678116 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14660382.v1

"I want to find a better place" : Assyrian immigrant women and English-language acquisition

2021· preprint· en· W4233678116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sonya Aslan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationFluencyPoint (geometry)Gender studiesFocus groupQualitative researchEnglish languageEthnic groupSociologyLinguisticsFocus (optics)Neuroscience of multilingualismPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceMathematics educationAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada's point system has helped ensure that many immigrants, both men and women, are fluent in English upon arrival (Kilbride et. aI, 2008). Consequently, research has indicated that those who enter as sponsored or dependent family members, the majority of whom are adult women, arrive with limited fluency in English. A qualitative research approach, including two focus-group interviews with seven Assyrian immigrant women helped identify factors that have stymied or facilitated their successful acquisition of English. Conceptualizing the relationship between the language learner and the social world, a feminist poststructural theory (Weedon, 1997) provided a glimpse into the ways in which proficiency or, lack thereof in English has impacted the lives of Assyrian immigrant women in the areas of work, family and well-being. The findings suggest there are needs specific to each ethno-linguistic group and that a one-size-fits-all approach in English programming does not help address these differences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→