MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1587902561

Repositioning French Language Education for National Integration and Development

2014· article· en· W1587902561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olaosebikan O. Wende

Bibliographic record

VenueJournals & Books Hosting (International Knowledge Sharing Platform) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLexicography and Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational integrationLinguisticsNational languageNational developmentIndigenousYardstickPolitical scienceForeign languageBlessingRelevance (law)SociologyEconomic growthHistoryLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nigeria's linguistic diversity rather than being a blessing as it was at Pentecost has been a bane of national development and integration as it was at Babel.  Nigeria parades over four hundred indigenous languages (Crozier and Blench, 1992) and two official foreign languages (English and French).  Of these various local languages, three stand out for national prominence.  While most developed countries are monolingual with the significant exception of Canada that is bilingual, with English and French spoken with equal degree of proficiency, most developing countries are bilingual or multilingual.  This is to say that monolingualism is not the only yardstick for development.  Therefore, if the French language is well repositioned and restrategised, it may definitely take Nigeria to an enviable height.  This paper therefore defines the concepts of language, national integration and development.  It highlights the apparatus on ground to make the French Language more functional in an Anglophone Nigeria.  The relevance of French to National Development is discussed, and strategies towards making it more functional for national development are pointed out in concrete terms. Keywords: Language, national integration, national development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournals & Books Hosting (International Knowledge Sharing Platform)Same topicLexicography and Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207