The Linguistic Duality Debate in English Canada in 2019, 1969, and 1929
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes to the political landscape have revived the debate over linguistic duality. That debate, however, is not altogether new. Many of the arguments being made in 2019, upon the fiftieth anniversary of theOfficial Languages Act, were not unlike those of 1969, when Canada adopted the Act, or even 1929, when government took modest measures to recognize English and French at the post office. In 1929, 1969 and 2019, some believed that pan-Canadian recognition of linguistic duality would serve national unity. Others, however, wondered whether it was compatible with the ethnocultural diversity of the country, or asserted that federal bilingualism in their province was not justified, citing populist, demographic or identity-based arguments. The debate—90 years ago, 50 years ago, or even today—has often given rise to fear and misunderstanding; however, it has also benefited from the persistence of moderates from both of Canada’s official language communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.057 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".