Language rights and official language in constitutionalism. Do bilingual states give us more rights for our language?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the first section, I describe the problem of language in society, providing meaning for “language planning”, “language policy”, “language ideology”, “language rights”, as well as setting the connections between them on the ground of a bilingual state. For the second chapter, I make arguments that are based on quantitative data addressed to the social structure and development for the following comparative analysis of language policies of selected bilingual states (Belgium, Canada, Ukraine and Sweden). Then, in the third chapter, I indicate a catalogue of rights related to language in constitutional acts through the prism of “official language” meaning. Finally, I conclude that (a) the catalogue of personal rights that are proclaimed by language policies may differ significantly between jurisdictions and does not apply only to minority rights, (b) language policies of bilingual states clearly describe traditional national minorities and their rights, but are more restrictive or indeterminate in granting of rights for newcomers (e.g., refugees or economic migrants). The links between democracy and liberal intention in language policies remain in question, to be resolved by a large sample
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".