MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922318763 · doi:10.33886/cijhs.v10i2.16

OPERATIONALIZING KISWAHILI AS A SECOND OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

2018· article· en· W2922318763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miriam Osore, Brenda Midika

Bibliographic record

VenueChemchemi International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationLanguage policyKenyaPolitical scienceOfficial languageConstitutionNational languageMedium of instructionLanguages of AfricaLanguage industryPromotion (chess)Language educationLinguisticsEconomic growthSociologyComprehension approachLawPedagogyEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, Kenyans became extremely aware of the issue of language and language usage in the country. This awareness led to the recognition of Kiswahili as one of the official languages of Kenya. The Kenyan 2010 Constitution recognizes that the national language of the Republic of Kenya is Kiswahili while the official languages are Kiswahili and English (Chapter 2, Section 7 (2). Previously, English was used as the official language and language of instruction in education sector while Kiswahili was the national language. This paper is anchored around the success of the Canadian and South African models of promoting two or more official languages. The paper seeks to borrow from the language policies of the two nations and make recommendations on how the new language policy can be operationalized in tandem with the spirit of the new constitution promulgated in 2010. The paper seeks to isolate the strengths of bilingual language policy as exemplifed by both Canadian and South African language policy models that can effectively contribute to the promotion of Kiswahili as an official language in Kenya.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueChemchemi International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences→Same topicMultilingual Education and Policy→French-language works237,207→