MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162011629 · doi:10.82308/1421

A qualitative inquiry of bilingualism and immigration in Québec: the voices and perspectives of Brazilian children

2015· dissertation· en· W7162011629 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luiz Lima

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)Neuroscience of multilingualismImmigrationNarrativeFocus (optics)Qualitative researchSocial identity theoryCultural identity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of children's voices and particularly their narratives of personal experience in the construction of identity has drawn increasing attention in human inquiry. Identity development in a new country can be difficult for immigrants. In addition to identity development, immigrants must adjust to new places, people, languages and cultures. In this study, I focus on understanding language and identity as social constructs through conversations with seven Brazilian children whose ages range from 7 to 14 years old. I also examine other factors (e.g., language use, identity, language ideologies) that they and their parents perceive have contributed to these Brazilian children's adaptation in Quebec society. I draw on Vygotsky‘s socio-cultural theory and identity theory to frame this inquiry and my conversations with the children. Three major themes emerged from the conversations: 1) first experiences at school, 2) language and/or culture, and 3) culture and identity. These children report positive experiences with teachers and support despite challenges in communicating in French and English.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.434 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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