MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132952933

The discourse on immigrant integration among teachers in two settlement programs: a comparative study

2007· dissertation· W7132952933 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Denis Pinet

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2007
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationSettlement (finance)MulticulturalismIdeologyInterculturalismContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Hegemony
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares the immigrant integration discourses of nine English as a Second Language (ESL) language settlement teachers in the Language Instruction for Newcomers (LINC) program in Toronto-area schools and nine French as a Second Language (FSL) language settlement teachers in the Programme d'integration linguistique pour immigrants (PILI) [Linguistic Integration Program for Immigrants] in Montreal-area schools. The teaching of English and French to immigrants can be understood to be part of the hegemonic projects of nation-building in Canada and Quebec, respectively. This study provides an historical overview of Canadian and Quebec immigration and integration policies and language settlement programs. This provides a context for how both the contemporary manifestations of the Canadian immigrant integration ideology of multiculturalism and the Quebec ideology of interculturalism are communicated through government policy documents and (re)transmitted in LINC and PILI program documents. Finally, this work seeks to understand how these two ideologies, or official discourses, are reproduced or resisted in the discourses of these eighteen participants, as well as how their lived experiences influence these teachers' discourses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0380.019
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.489 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→