Understanding the similarities and differences of dominant language ideology in Canada, India, and Bangladesh: A comparative policy analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the increasingly homogenized world, maintaining linguistic diversity is crucial. One way to achieve this is by enhancing existing language policies to help immigrant families preserve their language and culture in their new home. Key to the effectiveness of these policies is a deep understanding of the language ideologies encountered by immigrant families. This literature review examines how language ideologies have influenced (school) language policies in Ontario, Canada, West Bengal, India, and Bangladesh. It explores the language ideologies to which Indian and Bangladeshi immigrant families are exposed, which may significantly influence their language practices. Hence, learning about the dominant language ideologies of both the countries these transnational immigrants reside would be helpful for future researchers to understand their language practices. This knowledge could inform strategies to support immigrant families in maintaining their mother tongue while integrating into Canadian schools, emphasizing the importance of linguistic diversity in our interconnected world.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it