MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904918247 · doi:10.7202/1054052ar

Dynamique et transmission linguistique au Sénégal au cours des 25 dernières années1

2018· article· fr· W2904918247 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ibrahima Diouf, Cheikh Tidiane Ndiaye, Ndèye Binta Dieme

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLinguistic and Sociocultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Véhicule de connaissances traditionnelles, les langues autochtones au Sénégal subissent aujourd’hui l’effet combiné des nouvelles configurations familiales et des dynamiques migratoires. Dans l’administration publique et l’enseignement, le français s’est imposé. Partant des quatre derniers recensements généraux de population, cette étude présente l’évolution des caractéristiques démo-linguistiques de la population du Sénégal. L’accent est mis sur une analyse dynamique de la langue maternelle, les questions de transfert ou de substitution au profit d’une langue d’usage et la place du français dans l’univers linguistique national. Ces préoccupations rejoignent la question lancinante de l’introduction des langues africaines à l’école qui constitue encore le noeud gordien du système éducatif sénégalais. Comment évoluent les langues maternelles au Sénégal ? Dans quelles zones ou aires géographiques les enfants perdent-ils la pratique des langues familiales ? Répondre à toutes ces questions nous permettra de dresser l’architecture linguistique qui mettra en valeur, non seulement les langues locales, mais également les parlers nationaux qui faciliteront leur intégration dans le système éducatif.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicLinguistic and Sociocultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207