Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word "secret" does not refer here to something wilfully hidden, but it indicates an unknown or largely undiscovered element, or a topic deemed so far unworthy of study by the academic community.When an inventory of the research conducted on the languages of Italian Canadians is taken, the lion's share of the studies belongs to the description of italiese (or Italo-Canadian, the ethnolect of the first and to some extent second and third generations) both as a linguistic phenomenon and as a keeper and transmitter of identities.This in itself is a first and important step in reaching some understanding of the linguistic experiences of Italian Canadians.The lessons of italiese are clear and they echo the traditional conclusions reached by sociolinguists: firstly, unless an ethnic language, a koine, is supported by its speakers and by the society at large, it will disappear (see Siegel for the general definition of koine; if suggestions in his study are followed, italiese reached only a pre-koine stage).That this is the fate of italiese seems obvious and to dwell on the reasons why words such as morgheggio or yarda or giobba will soon meet their demise are rather obvious, although it is taking longer than Danesi predicted.("Ethnic koines and the Verbal Structuring of Reality: Psycholinguistic Observations on Canadian Italian" 114) It must be noted that Clivio's suggestion of "a new italiese" only makes its disappearance more evident.(Maglio 5) Secondly, language contact phenomena are not just a matter of universally based linguistic rules with differences in the parameters set by the grammar of the two or more languages.The meeting of, let's say, Sicilian and English in Toronto in the early 1950s within the same speaker or within the Sicilian immigrant community resulted in the inevitable borrowing and nativization of English lexemes to fit the Sicilian linguistic boundaries.Nevertheless, it is instructive to underline the fact that at the beginning the borrowed words almost without exception had something to do with survival, work, and consumerism, and until now, again almost without exception their list does not contain abstract terms, in contrast to the numerous English abstract terms borrowed into Italian in Italy (for a partial list of English borrowings into the Canadian italiese, see Danesi,1986 and Iuele-Colilli 1991).Education, political power, and social forces clearly underpin the bor-
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".