MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411418783 · doi:10.26034/cm.jostrans.2015.319

Debbie Folaron discusses the role of language and translation in endangered Aboriginal communities (Cree, Naskapi, Innu) with Julie Brittain and Marguerite MacKenzie

2015· article· en· W4411418783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Debbie Folaron, Julie Brittain, Marguerite MacKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Specialised Translation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationCensusHistoryFirst languageGeographyLinguisticsEthnologyGenealogyDemographySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the 2011 Census of Population conducted and published by Statistics Canada, there are over 60 Aboriginal languages grouped into 12 distinct language families in Canada. Approximately 213,500 people reported an Aboriginal mother tongue and nearly 213,400 people reported speaking an Aboriginal language most often or regularly at home. The Aboriginal language family with the largest number of people was Algonquian, and the ones most often reported were Cree languages, Ojibway, Innu/Montagnais and Oji-Cree. Three Aboriginal languages - the Cree languages, Inuktitut and Ojibway- accounted for almost two-thirds of the population having an Aboriginal language as mother tongue. These facts are examined in preliminary notes preceding an interview, in which Julie Brittain and Marguerite MacKenzie discuss the roles of language and translation in the Cree, Naskapi, and Innu communities with whom they work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Specialised TranslationSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207