A Review of Arabicization as a Controversial Issue of Language Planning in the Sudan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tries to review the issue of Arabicization through languages policy in the Sudan by tracing the different periods of the ups and downs of this process in its social and political context. Arabization and Arabicization are two terms used to serve two different purposes. Arabization is the official orientation of the (ruling group) towards creating a pro-Arab environment, by adopting Arabic culture, Arabic language in addition to Islam as main features of Arabizing the Sudanese entity. The mechanism towards imposing this Arabization is through the use of Arabic, as the official language the group (government). Arabicization is an influential word in the history of education in Sudan. The Sudan faced two periods of colonialism before Independence, The Turkish and the Condominium (British-Egyptian) Rule. Through all these phases in addition to the Mahdist period between them, many changes and shifts took place in education and accordingly in the Arabicization process. During the Condominium period, the Christian missions tried strongly to separate the South Region from the North Region, and to achieve this goal the government fought against the Arabic language so it would not create a place among the people of the Southern Sudan. But in spite of all the efforts taken by the colonialists, Arabic language found its place as Lingua Franca among most of the Southern Sudan tribes. After independence, the Arabicization process pervaded education. Recently, the salvation revolution also has used Arabicization on a wider range, but Arabicization is still future project. Both Arabization and Arabicization are still controversial issues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".