A Review of Arabicization as a Controversial Issue of Language Planning in the Sudan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it