Communities of practice and lexical variation in the Montréal Turkish community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the social organization of the Turkish community in Montréal and its influence on language use. The Montréal Turkish community has been growing since the 1960s as a result of various waves of migration. Bilge (2004) explained the fragmented structure of the community through ethnicity (Turks, Kurds and Armenians). However, conservative movements have grown stronger in the last two decades in Turkey and recent socio-politic changes are mostly based on religion rather than ethnicity. I anticipate that these sociological changes in Turkey have an impact on the organization of the Turkish community in Montréal and that I can observe the social identity of the members of the Turkish community in Montréal through lexical variation. To verify this prediction, I used a dual methodology: participant observation and analysis of the words used by participants to describe the structure of the Montréal Turkish community, the group to which they feel they belong, and other groups. The ethnographic study confirms that conflicts triggered by the socio-political structure and national ideology in the country of origin are determining factors in the organization of the Montréal Turkish community. Montréal Turks form an immigrant community divided into at least two communities of practice, traditionalist and progressive, each with its own socialization sites and its own discourse/style.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".