Bibliographic record
Abstract
In language learning research, different terms have been used to refer to identity: "self"; "position"; "role"; "subjectivity"; "subject"; and "agent". Scholars in the 1970s and 1980s interested in this research area tended to draw distinctions between social identity and cultural identity. Social identity referred to the relationship between the learner and the larger social world, mediated through institutions like families, schools, workplaces, social services, and law courts (e.g., Gumperz, 1982). On the other hand, cultural identity referred to the relationship between an individual and members of a particular ethnic group who share a common history and language, and similar ways of understanding the world. Past theories of cultural identity, however, tended to essentialize and reify identities in problematic ways (Atkinson, 1999). In more recent years, the difference between social and cultural identity is seen to be theoretically more fluid, and the intersections between social and cultural identities are considered more significant than their differences. Contemporary identity research has been consistently marked by a social constructionist paradigm that pays attention to the micro-level of interaction and meaning making. Recognizing that identity is socioculturally constructed, educators draw on both institutional and community practices to understand the conditions under which language learners speak, read, and write the target language.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".