Inuktitut and Inuit youth: Language attitudes as a basis for language planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this thesis is to identify language perceptions and attitudes among Inuit \nyouth (18-25 years old) in three Baffin Island communities: Iqaluit, Pangnirtung and \nPond Inlet. The premise of the study is that the Inuktitut language will only thrive if \nyoung Inuit are committed to using and maintaining their ancestral language. \nSemi-directed interviews (37) and closed questionnaires (130) elicit information on dayto- \nday language choice, perceptions of language use, problems or concerns in daily \nlanguage use, symbolic and practical value of Inuktitut, English and French, and opinions \nabout the promotion of Inuktitut in Nunavut. These language perceptions and attitudes \nexpressed by young Inuit illuminate reasons for the current level of use of Inuktitut and \nhelp prioritize areas for future language planning. \nFindings suggest that although Inuktitut remains relatively strong, Inuit youth are aware \nof and sensitive to the loss of Inuktitut, particularly in Iqaluit. Inuktitut is valued by Inuit \nyouth because it is the mother tongue; the language of Inuit tradition, culture and identity; \na “fun” language; a language that is being lost; a useful language for getting a job; and an \neffective tool for participating and integrating in the community. At the same time, \nEnglish is valued because it is a “cool” language, the language of the new millennium \nthat allows Inuit youth to travel, get an education, get jobs, and participate in their local \ncommunities and beyond. \nInuit youth are strongly motivated to maintain both Inuktitut and English. They need both \nlanguages in order to pursue their aspirations of making the best of both worlds in which \nthey are currently negotiating their place.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".