MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Colonial Impact on the Socio-Communicative Functions of Arabic Language in Nigeria: An Overview

2013· article· en· W2133279584 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alfa Muhammed Salisu, Abdullahi Salisu Abdullahi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Linguistic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubversionArabicColonialismModern languageScripting languageLinguisticsHistoryTRACE (psycholinguistics)IslamOfficial languagePolitical scienceForeign languageLawComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before the advent of the colonialist in Nigeria, Arabic language was used as the official language of communication and of daily intercourse. Historical records also confirmed that for about three centuries between 17th and 19th centuries Arabic documents remained the only source of information for European writers on western and central Sudan. A large number of these scholarly works were written by native West African authors in Arabic language, or in their native languages using Arabic scripts. However, the scramble for West African countries by the Europeans in the 19th century brought about the occupation of the areas by the imperialists. This led to change in socio –cultural life of the people of the regions including the Muslims, which in turn has a spillover effect on the communicative functions of Arabic language. Thus, this paper intends to trace a brief history of Arabic in Nigeria, its functions as the language of communication and its subsequent subversion by the European colonialist. Special attention is giving to the present status of Arabic language in Nigeria and the subsequent implications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social scienceSame topicHistorical and Linguistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207