“You Speak Well for an Anglophone”: Resisting the Processes of Delegitimation and Developing Linguistic Security
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
ABSTRACT This article explores the ways that young French speakers from British Columbia, an English‐dominant province of Canada, navigate different processes of linguistic delegitimation and how these processes are linked to linguistic insecurity. The findings are derived from interviews conducted with nine young French speakers from British Columbia who shared their most significant experiences of linguistic insecurity. The results, which are based on a thematic analysis, show how participants are being delegitimized by family members from dominant French‐speaking contexts due to some of their linguistic practices that diverge from standard forms. They also indicate that participants have found ways to gain linguistic security by acquiring knowledge, participating in their communities, and accepting different linguistic practices that characterize their variety of French. However, this linguistic security work is limited by the existing ideologies in the French‐speaking world that delegitimize the non‐standard varieties.
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 | 0.002 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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