Elders’ Conversations: Perspectives on Leveraging Digital Technology in Language Revival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In First Nations, Métis, and Inuit (FNMI) communities, Elders are highly regarded as intergenerational transmitters of ancestral language and Indigenous knowledge. Without language revival initiatives, ancestral languages in FNMI communities are at risk of extinction. Leveraging digital technologies while collaborating with Elders can support revival initiatives. Through semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis, this study addresses how three Elders who use technology in their ancestral language teaching (1) describe the benefits, drawbacks, and preferences of technology; (2) reveal the accuracy with which cultural knowledge is imparted through technology; and (3) view the impact of technology on their role as traditional knowledge keepers and intergenerational language transmitters Findings suggest that while Elders acknowledge the benefits of leveraging digital tools in language revival initiatives, they are concerned about technology’s potential negative impacts on relationality.
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".