Voices of Immigrant Adults: Perspectives and Experiences with French as a Second Official Language in âEnglish-dominantâ Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The federal government of Canada, through the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (OCOL) (2000), claims that immigration is a challenge to English/French official language duality in Canada. In its promotion of official language duality to potential immigrants, the government cites the advantages of official language bilingualism and the responsibility of immigrants to respect official language duality (OCOL, 2002). Supported by Anderson’s theory of imagined communities (2006), Lave and Wenger’s concept of situated learning (1991) and Bourdieu’s concept of capital (1977), this study reports on immigrant parents’ perspectives and experiences with French as a second official language (FSOL) in parts of English-dominant Canada as reported through interviews with adult immigrants to Canada. More precisely, the immigrants report on their pursuit of official language bilingualism for themselves and their children and their difficulty in accessing its cited advantages. I suggest the government has responsibility in converting its claims of the advantages to official language bilingualism into realities for the immigrant population
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".