MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591997244 · doi:10.5539/jel.v6n3p14

Instructional Supports for Students with Special Education Needs in French as a Second Language Education: A Review of Canadian Empirical Literature

2017· review· en· W2591997244 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Callie Mady, Stefanie Muhling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of TorontoNipissing University
FundersMinistère de l’Éducation, Gouvernement de l’Ontario
KeywordsFrench immersionAP French LanguageVariety (cybernetics)Empirical researchPsychologyPedagogyIntervention (counseling)Mathematics educationForeign languageComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the view to responding to a call for information on instructional supports for students with special education needs (SSEN) in French as a second language (FSL) education, this article reviews the empirical literature from three Canadian contexts: core French, intensive French and French immersion. More specifically, we developed this literature review by conducting an electronic search for pertinent Canadian empirical studies and manually searching select Canadian journals from the last 15 years. Our findings revealed a variety of existing instructional supports to enhance the success of SSEN in FSL programs in general and strategies for identification and intervention in French immersion in particular.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207