MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386543634 · doi:10.1177/27523810231192263

Sign language ideologies and deaf interpreters in Canada

2023· article· en· W4386543634 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kristin Snoddon

Bibliographic record

VenueInterpreting and Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSign languageInterpreterLanguage interpretationDeaf educationIdeologySociolinguistics of sign languagesPsychologyDeaf cultureLinguisticsPedagogySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports preliminary survey and interview data from a 3-year study regarding language ideologies related to deaf interpreters (DIs). DIs are professional sign language interpreters who are deaf and who may work as part of a team with hearing sign language interpreters. Survey data provide a snapshot of current DI demographics and reflect that most DIs are Canadian-born and from a grandparent generation. This suggests that a precarious national sign language ecosystem currently exists in Canada. Data from an interview with one DI participant reveal how this participant, by virtue of his education in Canadian deaf schools and professional background, was positioned as a peer of other Canadian deaf professionals. Simultaneously, due to his immigrant background and accompanying lived experiences of language and multilayered repertoire, he was positioned in solidarity with deaf clients who were newcomers to Canada and multiply marginalised. This dual positioning and status enabled insights regarding dominant language ideologies among DIs and other deaf professionals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterpreting and SocietySame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207