MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390927532 · doi:10.1515/9780776625645-013

CHAPTER 10 Active Offer, Bilingualism, and Organizational Culture

2017· book-chapter· en· W4390927532 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvain Vézina

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismOrganizational cultureLinguisticsSociologyPsychologyBusinessPolitical sciencePublic relationsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n this chapter, the author approaches active offer from the angle of organizational culture.He presents the results of a survey of health professionals working in Anglophone and Francophone hospital facilities in New Brunswick.The organizational culture of these institutions is discussed in light of research in the sociology of organizations, not as a fate but as a construct, as are the rules of the organizational game (hierarchical relations, job description, collective agreements, and so on).The research reveals the predominance of an organizational culture centred on bilingualism, which leads to a persistent confusion between the notions of active offer and bilingualism.From this point of view, although bilingualism is essential to a high-quality active offer in both official languages, it can also be counter-productive when it comes to introducing a culture that is favourable to active offer.The findings show the emphasis placed on bilingualism is often perceived by unilingual people as a threat to the balance of powers within the system, frequently leading to resistance toward any measure favourable to active offer.Hence, the author suggests the value of a culture of active offer should be articulated in terms of the objectives of safety and high-quality care in the official languages.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa Press eBooksSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207