MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906168735

Politiques linguistiques d’immigration et didactique du français pour les adultes migrants : regards croisés sur la France, la Belgique, la Suisse et le Québec

2018· dissertation· fr· W2906168735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Coraline Pradeau

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis proposes to identify the particular category of linguistic policies which deals with immigration. The chosen approach is to perform a cross analysis on four French-speaking contexts. This comparative research allows us to shift the focus on language and immigration away from the national level. We offer to place the linguistic, cultural and educational dimensions linked with the integration of migrants in a European and international perspective. This study has two objectives: perform a typology and an evaluation of these policies. We aim at describing and analysing the choices and actions led by the state to develop knowledge and learning for adult migrants. Our research identifies the turning point from which proficiency of language became a political issue, deeply intertwined with immigration policies. On one side, the thesis emphasizes the linguistic ideologies that shape the collective imaginations, and their influence on political arguments and language planning. On the other side, it highlights the flow of assumed ideologies and state practices related to language and immigration. Finally, the research takes into account the impact of language planning on knowledge production and training in language didactics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207