When the survival of a language is at stake: The future of Inuttitut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the functional roles of English, French, and Inuttitut in arctic Qué-bec. In their concern with disadvantaged members of society and their focus on functional differences in language use, the authors draw on early research by Robinson concerning language and social behavior for working- and middle-class speakers. First, they present evidence concerning the importance of sustained heritage language (Inuttitut) develop-ment in second-language acquisition and address the implications of this finding in terms of additive versus subtractive bilingualism in the North. Second, they contrast the lan-guage proficiencies of children in the two dominant languages, English and French, exploring variations in status and their concomitant effects on language acquisition. Fin-ally, they compare the conversational versus academic language proficiencies of Inuit children in the context of minority versus dominant language education and discuss impli-cations for the debate on language deficits versus differences for disadvantaged children. The recognition that language is a powerful social tool for demarcat-ing status and controlling access to resources represented an impor-tant breakthrough in social psychological research. A new focus on group differences in language use and learning arose out of Robinson’s social psychological analysis of language and social class (e.g., Robin-son, 1972). This research tradition continues in the present article, which takes as its context the study of heritage language retention and second-language learning in a remote Inuit community in arctic Qué-bec. In this small village of less than 400 individuals, the dynamic rela-tionship between social power and language is of more than theoretical interest.For the Inuit, the very survival of their language is at stake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".