Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minority ethnolinguistic groups need ‘institutional completeness’ to survive and prosper (Breton 1964). Indeed, the ‘support and control of institutions’ is one of three structural variables that contribute most to the vitality of ethnolinguistic minorities (Giles et al 1977). The control of public institutions in the field of education is a constitutional right in Canada since 1982, albeit limited in practice, and recent jurisprudence suggests that similar constitutional guarantees may apply to health and municipal institutions. Also, recent literature in political geography confirms the importance of sub-state institutions as territorial and functional markers of minority group identity. There is thus a growing realization from a variety of social science disciplines that public institutions can play a significant role in helping minority groups survive and prosper. That conclusion, however, needs nuances, clarifications and further empirical support. On the one hand, the empirical data supporting the correlation between strong ethnolinguistic vitality and institutionnal support and control does not explain why or how minorities with the highest level of vitality have a higher degree of institutional support. Nor does it say if institutions enhance vitality more than vitality enhances institutions. We also need explanations regarding if and how such institutional support is achieved and, especially, if and how institutions are used by minority groups to enhance their vitality. In fact, many minorities control their own school boards, municipal councils and regional health authorities, but do not use these institutions to promote and enhance their language, culture and identity. On the other hand, there is no overarching framework to string together the contributions of a variety of academic disciplines into a coherent explanation of the role public institutions play in ethnolinguistic vitality. It thus appears necessary to pursue a multidisciplinary research programme to (a) link the data obtained from social psychology, sociology, philosophy, political science, public administration and law, and (b) pursue research on the link between sub-state institutions and sociolinguistic vitality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".