A Hidden Curriculum in Language Textbooks: Are Beginning Learners of French at U.S. Universities Taught About Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated a hidden curriculum in published language teaching materials by tabulating the number of instances that Canada was mentioned in 9 French textbooks and their accompanying workbooks and CD–ROMs. The materials were used at large public universities in the northern United States. For the present study, 2 raters, a Québécois student and an American student of French, found that, on average, 15.3% of the analyzed sections of the textbooks, 6.5% of the workbook sections, and 29.9% of the sections in the CD–ROMs contained Canadian content. Based on a transnational view of culture, which suggests that cultural content in language materials should be chosen in view of local issues ( Risager, 2007 ), I argue that Canada should play a larger role in French teaching materials used in the northern United States. In particular, increased Canadian content might help to create needs for and interest in French, foster learning about the nonneutrality of language, and stimulate discovery of local historical linguistic and cultural diversity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".