Code-switching im Sorbischen und im Duchobor- Russischen als eine mögliche Zwischenstufe in der Erhaltung und Revitalisierung von Minderheitensprachen in der EU und in Kanada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Code-switching in Sorbian and Duokhobor-Russian as a Possible Intermediate Level in the Preservation and Revitalization of Minority Languages in the EU and Canada There is no agreement among sociolinguists and language planners concerning the scope of maintenance/revitalization efforts for minority languages. Specifically, there is a view that in the absence of a fully bilingual situation, certain linguistic domains (or levels) may need to be emphasized at the expense of others. Concentrating on Sorbian in Germany and Doukhobor Russian in Canada, it can be shown that while a fully developed level of LSP (“language for specific purposes”) is available for both language groups, a large percentage of speakers cite the lack of LSP terms for not using the language in business establishments (Sorbian) or ritual ceremonies (Doukhobor Russian). For this reason, it is perhaps necessary to aim for a “reconfigured” LSP, viz., a kind of “planned” code-switching within that level that will not necessitate the exclusive use of the LSP of the dominant language.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".