Politiques linguistiques d’immigration et didactique du français pour les adultes migrants : regards croisés sur la France, la Belgique, la Suisse et le Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".